SUPPORTING STATEMENT
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Patent and PTAB Pro Bono Programs
OMB CONTROL NUMBER 0651-0082
2025
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the information collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112–29 § 32 (2011) directs the USPTO to work with and support intellectual property law associations across the country in the establishment of pro bono programs designed to assist financially under-resourced independent inventors and small businesses (also referred to as “regional hubs”). To support this, the USPTO works with and supports various non-profit organizations to operate a series of autonomous regional hubs that endeavor to match low-income inventors with volunteer patent practitioners across the United States. The regional hubs comprise law schools, bar associations, innovation/entrepreneurial organizations, and arts-focused lawyer referral services that are strategically located to provide access to patent pro bono services across all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
To support the purposes described above, the Patent Pro Bono Survey collects information regarding the activity of the regional hubs. The USPTO works with the Pro Bono Advisory Council (PBAC) to determine what information is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each regional hub’s operations. The PBAC is a well-established group of patent practitioners and thought leaders in intellectual property who provide support and guidance to the regional hubs across the country. The data collected provides the USPTO with valuable information, including the number of inventor inquiries, referral sources, number of pro bono applicants successfully matched with patent practitioners, and types of patent filings. The USPTO, PBAC, and the regional hubs, are responsible for the quarterly collection of this data.
The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), collaborates with the PTAB Bar Association (PTAB Bar Assoc.), a non-profit organization focused on helping secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every PTAB proceeding and serves the public by coordinating pro bono opportunities. The PTAB and the PTAB Bar Assoc. established a national clearinghouse that acts as a matchmaker to connect under-resourced inventors with volunteer patent practitioners across the United States for assistance in preparing and arguing ex parte appeals before the PTAB. The PTAB Bar Assoc.’s national clearinghouse provides nationwide access to legal representation for pro bono ex parte appeal services. The PTAB Pro Bono Program supports the purposes described above by facilitating the availability of pro bono services for proceedings before the PTAB, which the USPTO believes can help reduce the financial burden on under-resourced inventors seeking ex parte appeal assistance, especially those impacted by the pandemic.
The information, at its highest level, allows the USPTO to determine whether the regional hubs and national clearinghouse are matching qualified under-resourced inventors with volunteer patent practitioners and help estimate the total economic benefit derived by low-income inventors in the form of donated legal services. This information also helps the USPTO determine if the regional hubs and clearinghouse are effectively serving low-income inventors and whether they may need additional support.
Table 1 identifies the statutory and regulatory authorities that allow for the USPTO to support the Patent Pro Bono Program and the PTAB Pro Bono Program. This proposed survey facilitates USPTO’s support and coordination of the regional patent pro bono hubs and the PTAB Bar Assoc.’s national clearinghouse and ensures that the regional hubs and the national clearinghouse is effectively providing patent pro bono services and PTAB pro bono appeal services to its constituents. The surveys also help validate USPTO funding allocations to certain regional hubs via established Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and administration performance of the national clearinghouse under their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USPTO.
Table 1: Information Requirements
Item No.
|
Description
|
Statute |
Other Authority
|
1
|
Patent Pro Bono Survey |
Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 32; 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(11); |
White House Executive Action dated 20 February 2014
|
2 |
PTAB Pro Bono Survey |
Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 32; 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(11); |
White House Executive Action dated 20 February 2014 |
Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new information collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current information collection.
This information collection helps determine the effectiveness the regional hubs and national clearinghouse in serving low-income inventors. As discussed, the works with the PBAC and PTAB Bar Assoc. to determine what information is necessary to ascertain the effectiveness of the respective regional hubs and national clearinghouse The USPTO, the PBAC, regional hubs, and national clearinghouse are responsible for collecting this information.
Specifically, the information allows the PBAC, PTAB Bar Assoc., and the USPTO to ascertain the origination state of pro bono applicants, where applicants are being referred from, the number of applicants who are matched with volunteer practitioners, and the demographics of the applicants. Additionally, the information helps track corporations/law firms agreeing to accept cases, backlog of unmatched applicants, and hours donated by volunteer practitioners. For the Patent Pro Bono Program this information also helps track the number of provisional, non-provisional, and design applications filed. For the PTAB Pro Bono Program this information helps track the number of appeals filed and the results of Board decisions.
The information allows the USPTO to determine how effectively the regional hubs and national clearinghouse are matching qualified low-income inventors with volunteer patent practitioners. It also helps successfully establish the total economic benefit derived by low-income inventors in the form of donated legal services. This information is used to promote the regional hubs and national clearinghouse to financially under-resourced inventors and patent practitioners.
Table 2 outlines how the items in this information collection are used by the regional hubs, national clearinghouse, and the USPTO:
Table 2: Needs and Uses
Item No.
|
IC Instrument |
Form Number |
Needs and Uses |
1 |
Patent Pro Bono Survey |
USPTO/550 |
|
2 |
PTAB Pro Bono Survey |
USPTO/552 |
|
Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological information collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of information collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
The information collected through the pro bono programs will only be collected through online survey tools and electronically submitted by program administrators. No paper or other non-electronic methods of submission are envisioned for the surveys. Regional programs and the national clearinghouse may provide other formats to reach their participants.
Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
USPTO collects this information from program administrators on a quarterly basis. It does not duplicate information or collect data that could be found elsewhere; it functions as the source data for regional hubs and/or national clearinghouse statistics, and may later be used by the organizations that participate in these programs at their own discretion.
If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Small business entity status is determined by the Small Business Administration. As small non-profits, many of the regional hubs and national clearinghouse are small entities. No specific change in rules, processing, fees, or other factors benefit one categorical entity over another in this information collection. Therefore, the Pro Bono Surveys, which are an essential part of the respective pro bono programs, place an equally low burden on the regional hub and national clearinghouse administrators.
For the PTAB Pro Bono Program, the USPTO collaborated with the PTAB Bar Assoc. regarding data collection. The USPTO and the PTAB Bar Assoc. worked with IP stakeholders to minimize any potential impact of the data collection on the PTAB Bar Assoc. Specifically, the USPTO and PTAB Bar Assoc. kept the reported fields to a minimum requiring only those field necessary for determining critical referral operations. This reduces the overall amount of data being collected. There will be an initial impact on the PTAB Bar Assoc. to set up the tool to capture applicant information and to organize this information for reporting to the USPTO via the PTAB Pro Bono Survey Form, but the initial set up impact is small and will reduce any long-term impacts associated with the repeated reporting of data.
Describe the consequence to federal program or policy activities if the information collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
The USPTO collects the information under the Patents Pro Bono Program on a quarterly basis in order to determine the effectiveness of the regional hubs and how best to provide additional support to those centers. The USPTO collects the information under the PTAB Pro Bono Program on an annual basis from the national clearinghouse. In general, the USPTO and the regional hubs operate collectively under a MOA, which outlines the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Typically, regional hubs report a MOA invoice on either a monthly or quarterly basis, which ensures effective oversight of USPTO funds by aligning with the invoicing schedules. Likewise, the USPTO and national clearinghouse collectively support the PTAB Pro Bono Program under a MOU, which outlines the roles and responsibilities of the parties. This collection of data will provide regular information on the administration of the PTAB Pro Bono Program, and allows the USPTO to provide additional support and assistance based on the data as required in the MOU.
Less frequent data collection would reduce the USPTO’s ability to support the regional hubs and national clearinghouse in a timely manner because these organizations have rapidly changing data. Less frequent sharing of information would also reduce the relevancy of the information for publication to stakeholders, such as inventors and patent practitioners, and for outreach in presentations, online discussion, and conferences. In addition, this information is not collected elsewhere.
Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
There are no special circumstances associated with this collection of information.
If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of information collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
The 60-Day Federal Register Notice published on August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52938).1 The public comment period ended on October 31, 2022. No public comments were received.
The USPTO has long-standing relationships with the regional hubs from which the Pro Bono Survey data is collected. Additionally, USPTO has worked with the PBAC to measure the effectiveness of each regional hub’s operations. The PBAC is a well-established group of patent practitioners and thought leaders in intellectual property who have committed to provide support and guidance to patent pro bono hubs across the country. Views expressed by the regional hubs and PBAC were considered in developing proposals for information collection requirements and during the renewal of this information collection. Similarly, the USPTO established the PTAB Pro Bono effort with extensive discussion with IP stakeholders, many of whom are members of PBAC and the PTAB Bar Assoc. Views expressed by the IP stakeholders, PBAC members, and the PTAB Bar Assoc. were considered in developing proposals for information collection requirements.
Consultation with the regional hubs and the PTAB Bar Assoc. regarding the information collection occurs as needed through quarterly meetings with regional hub and national clearinghouse administrators.
Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
This information collection does not involve a payment or gift to any respondent.
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the information collection requires a system of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
The MOAs/MOUs that are in place with each of the participants indicate that only non-confidential information is to be shared, and thus no proprietary information is included in either survey. Aggregate information obtained in this information collection is often made available to the public. Any information retained by the USPTO or the participants will be kept private to the extent permitted by law.
As only aggregate information is provided to USPTO there is no personally identifiable information (PII) or individualized information collected or maintained by USPTO. The regional hubs and national clearinghouse do collect some PII for their own internal purposes, but the PII is not accessible to the USPTO and is not requested or reported in the Pro Bono Surveys.
Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
None of the required information is considered to be of a sensitive nature. Information is strictly collected on a voluntary basis. This information used by USPTO to understand the effectiveness of the pro bono programs in reaching diverse populations.
Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under ‘Annual Cost to Federal Government’.
Table 3 calculates the anticipated burden hours and costs of this information collection to the public, based on the following factors:
Respondent Calculation Factors
The USPTO projects that 23 respondents to this information collection will submit 89 responses per year. Program administrators for the Patents Pro Bono Program responding on behalf of private sector non-profits will report their metrics quarterly, while the clearinghouse administrators provide the information to the PTAB Pro Bono Program once annually. The USPTO estimates that approximately 25% of these responses will be from small entities. The USPTO estimates that the responses will be filed electronically. 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 regional hub and clearinghouse administrators approximately 1.75 hours (105 minutes) to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate document(s), and submit the item to the USPTO. Using these burden factors, USPTO estimates that the total respondent hourly burden for this information collection is 156 hours per year.
Cost Burden Calculation Factors
The USPTO expects that administrators will supply the information for the surveys in this information collection. The rate ($55.41) for administrators (BLS 11–1021) is based the BLS 2021 National Occupation and Employment and Wage Estimates. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $8,644 per year.
Table 3: Total Burden Hours and Hourly Costs to Private Sector Respondents
Item No. |
Item |
Estimated Annual Respondents
(a) |
Responses per Respondent
(b) |
Estimated Annual Responses
(a) x (b) = (c) |
Estimated Time for Response (hours)
(d) |
Estimated Burden (hour/year)
(c) x (d) = (e) |
Rate2 ($/hour)
(f) |
Estimated Annual Respondent Cost Burden
(e) x (f) = (g) |
1
|
Patent Pro Bono Survey (USPTO/550) |
22 |
4 |
88 |
1.75 (105 minutes) |
154 |
$55.41 |
$8,533 |
2 |
PTAB Pro Bono Survey (USPTO/552) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.75 (105 minutes) |
2 |
$55.41 |
$111 |
|
Totals |
23 |
- - - |
89 |
- - - |
156 |
- - - |
Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
Patents: There are no annualized non-hour costs associated with this information collection. All of the items in this information collection are submitted electronically or in person, eliminating the need for postage, and there are no other transaction costs (e.g. filing fees) associated with Patents Pro Bono Program.
PTAB: $1,333. There is an annualized cost for the national clearinghouse to create a data collection form to capture appeals information and demographic data. The USPTO estimates that national clearinghouse will an annual cost of $1,333. There are no maintenance costs, filing fees, or postage costs associated with the PTAB Pro Bono Program.
Provide estimates of annualized costs to the federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
The USPTO estimates that it takes a GS-14, step 10, 1 hour to process a single submission from this information collection. The 2022 hourly rate for a GS-14, step 10, is $78.63. When 30% is added to account for a fully loaded hourly rate (benefits and overhead), the rate per hour for a GS-14, step 10, is $102.22 ($78.63 + $23.59).
Table 4 calculates the processing hours and costs of this information collection to the Federal Government:
Item No. |
Item |
Estimated Annual Responses (a) |
Estimated Burden Hours (b) |
Estimated Hourly Burden (a) x (b) = (c) |
Rate3 ($/hr)
(d) |
Total Federal Government Cost (c) x (d) = (e) |
1 |
Patent Pro Bono Survey (USPTO/550) |
88 |
1 |
88 |
$102.22
|
$8,995 |
2 |
PTAB Pro Bono Survey (USPTO/552) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
$102.22 |
$102 |
|
Totals |
89 |
- - - |
89 |
- - - |
$9,097 |
Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet
Table 5: ICR Summary of Burden
|
Requested |
Program Change Due to New Statute |
Program Change Due to Agency Discretion |
Change Due to Adjustment in Agency Estimate |
Change Due to Potential Violation of the PRA |
Previously Approved |
Annual Number of Responses |
89 |
0 |
-1,743 |
0 |
0 |
1,832 |
Annual Time Burden (Hr) |
156 |
0 |
-171 |
0 |
0 |
327 |
Annual Cost Burden ($) |
1,333 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1,333 |
Change due to Adjustment in Agency Discretion
The total number of respondents and time burden have decreased; decreases in the number of responses (-1,743) and burden hours (-171) are due to the removal of the applicant intake forms (USPTO/551 and USPTO/553), as well as the reduction in the responses per respondent of the PTAB Pro Bono Survey (Item 2) from 4 to 1.
For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The USPTO plans to present summary metrics for the regional hubs and national clearinghouse using the Pro Bono Surveys in order to promote the respective centers at conferences and forums. Metrics for the regional hubs may be aggregated.
For the Patent Pro Bono Survey, the USPTO may also publish metrics for individual regional hubs to promote the hubs individually. The Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the USPTO is responsible for conducting and summarizing the Patent Pro Bono Survey. These quarterly surveys are used as a basis for regional hub performance discussion. This performance discussion will be used to establish criteria to evaluate each hub on its own merits. This data will help the USPTO evaluate the performance of each regional hub as well as the overall performance and health of the Patent Pro Bono Program.
For the PTAB Pro Bono Survey, summary metrics for the national clearinghouse in order to promote the PTAB Bar Assoc.’s national clearinghouse at conferences and forums. The PTAB of the USPTO is responsible for conducting and summarizing information from its survey. These quarterly surveys are used as a basis for a national clearinghouse performance discussion.
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
The forms in this information collection will display the OMB Control Number and the OMB expiration date of OMB approval.
Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.”
This collection of information does not include any exceptions to the certificate statement.
3 https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2022/DCB_h.pdf.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Styles, Nicholas (AMBIT) |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2025-05-19 |