We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The USPTO has extended the Full
First Action Interview Pilot Program to August 16, 2012.
According to the
Federal Register Notice, the USPTO is "completing a
comprehensive review of the program, deciding what, if any,
adjustments should be made to the program, and whether the program
should be extended further or made permanent." The USPTO is
soliciting public comments on the program, and will consider
written comments received by August 8, 2012.
The First Action Interview Program
As I wrote in
this article, the USPTO promotes the First Action Interview
program as a way to advance prosecution, enhance interaction
between the applicant and the examiner, resolve issues one-on-one
with the examiner early in prosecution, and facilitate early
allowance. I have several applications in the program, and agree
that it is a useful option for applicants.
Preliminary Results
According to the USPTO, over 2,100 requests to participate in
the program have been received since it was expanded to encompass
all applications. Of the applications that have been examined under
the program, over 35% have been allowed in the first Action.
The USPTO believes that this program offers at least the
following benefits:
effectively advancing prosecution of an application before
issuance of an Office action
enhanced interaction between the applicant and the examiner
before issuance of an Office action
resolving patentability issues one-on-one with the examiner at
the beginning of the prosecution process, rather than after a first
Office action; and
expedited allowance of an application, relative to standard
examination, due to the program's enhanced communication and
shorter time periods for response.
Request for Comments
The USPTO interested in "receiving feedback as to whether
the program is meeting the needs of its applicants, and whether any
aspects of the program cause applicants to not participate."
In particular, the USPTO has asked for comments that respond to the
following questions:
Based on your use of the program, did you experience the
benefits of the FAI program set out above? Did you experience
additional benefits?
Did the Pre-Interview Communication provide you with
sufficient, meaningful information to conduct an effective
interview?
How productive is the interview before first action in
advancing prosecution?
How would you rate the extent/utility of the information
provided in the Pre-Interview Communication and subsequent Office
action?
What changes would you make to the FAI program? How would these
changes improve the program?
For any application in which you decided that the FAI program
would not meet your needs, what aspect of the program made the
program unsuitable for the application?
Do you consider the FAI program to be more efficient (or
otherwise beneficial) as compared to traditional prosecution?
Should the Office make the FAI program permanent?
A Few More Weeks of Datapoints?
I am somewhat surprised that the USPTO only extended this
program for a few more weeks. Hopefully it will be extended again
right away (so we won't be left in
limbo like we were in May), or made permanent.
With only 2,100 requests filed, it will be interesting to see
how many comments are submitted, and what suggestions people may
have for improving the program, or for making it more attractive.
If you have used this program, I would be interested in hearing
about your experience.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
A discussion following Shepard Fairey pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt for destroying and altering documents in his civil lawsuit against The Associated Press.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
Discussing The Supreme Court's Oral Arguments In Myriad Gene Patenting Case (Video Content)
