Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Representative and Address Provisions
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The United States Patent and Trademark Office wants to know what people think about their way of managing who can talk on your behalf about your patents and where they send the mail. They especially want to make sure their way is easy to use, even if you like to mail things the old-fashioned way or use a computer.
Summary AI
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is requesting public comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection related to "Representative and Address Provisions." According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, they are inviting comments to be submitted before March 16, 2021. The collection includes various forms and procedures for managing power of attorney and correspondence addresses related to patent applications. USPTO is seeking feedback on the necessity, burden, and efficacy of the information collection methods, including electronic submission options.
Abstract
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651- 0035 (Representative and Address Provisions). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the information collection to OMB.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document outlined in the Federal Register is a call for public commentary by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As part of its compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USPTO is seeking feedback on extending and revising an existing collection of information. This collection pertains to "Representative and Address Provisions," which include the necessary procedures and forms for handling power of attorney and correspondence addresses associated with patent applications and proceedings.
Overview and Purpose
At its core, this document serves to invite public participation in assessing the necessity, effectiveness, and potential burden of these administrative procedures. By inviting comments, the USPTO aims to gather insights on whether these processes serve their intended purpose efficiently and to explore possible improvements, particularly through electronic submissions.
Issues and Concerns
Several potential concerns arise from the document. Firstly, the USPTO estimates a total non-hour respondent cost burden of $22,868 annually, covering filing fees and postage, yet the breakdown of these costs is unclear. This lack of detail may lead to confusion and hinder stakeholders' understanding of cost distribution.
Despite the preference for electronic submissions, the document allows mail submissions, which may result in inefficiencies due to handling physical mail. Although expected to be a small portion, the USPS postage cost estimation process remains vague.
Another concern involves the engagement process, which invites public comments but lacks clarity on how these will be processed or lead to tangible actions. Furthermore, the document contains technical jargon and legal references that could be confusing to those outside the patent or legal community.
The comprehensive list of form numbers and types may overwhelm or confuse the general public. Simplifying this information could enhance overall understanding. Additionally, while describing the granting and revocation of power of attorney, the document's complexity might challenge those without legal expertise.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The potential impacts of the document are varied. For the general public, the call for comments represents an opportunity to influence how the USPTO manages essential administrative activities related to patent applications. However, the complexity and possible communication barriers may limit widespread participation.
Specific stakeholders such as patent attorneys, applicants, and owners could experience direct benefits from streamlined processes if improvements are enacted based on public feedback. Electronic submission options, for example, may significantly reduce administrative burdens and costs.
On the flip side, individuals or small businesses unfamiliar with the nuances of patent processes may find the detailed forms and requirements daunting. The assurance that public comments, including personal information, might not remain confidential could deter honest and uninhibited responses, impacting the quality of feedback the USPTO receives.
Conclusion
While the document demonstrates the USPTO's intention to streamline and enhance its administrative processes, the complexity and technical nature inherently challenge broad public engagement. Simplifying communication and clarifying cost structures could greatly benefit stakeholders and enhance the efficacy of these administrative operations.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document under review provides insights into the financial aspects related to the information collection effort by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This commentary focuses on the monetary references and their implications within the document.
Total Estimated Cost Burden
In the document, the USPTO outlines the estimated total annual respondent hourly cost burden to be $1,763,775. Additionally, it states the estimated total annual non-hour respondent cost burden as $22,868. These costs reflect what respondents might spend in terms of time, filing fees, and postage for the information collection process.
Filing Fees and Postage Costs
The document specifies that part of the non-hour respondent cost burden includes $8,000 in filing fees. These fees are associated with two petitions listed under the regulatory framework of 37 CFR 1.17(f).
Moreover, there is a distinct $14,868 allocated for postage costs. The USPTO estimates that only a small fraction (1%) of the total 184,745 items submitted will be mailed, which contributes to this portion of the cost. The calculated postage cost is based on the $8.05 charge for a Priority Mail 2-day flat rate legal envelope used by the United States Postal Service (USPS).
Contribution to Identified Issues
While the document partially breaks down the financial allocations, there is a lack of clarity in how the total non-hour respondent cost burden of $22,868 is fully derived, aside from the known filing fees and postage costs. This could potentially lead to confusion or ambiguity for respondents who are trying to understand the complete financial impact of their participation.
The document does express a preference for electronic submission, which is likely intended to minimize costs and improve efficiency. However, because the document allows for mail submissions, it introduces possible inefficiencies in processing physical mail, contributing to non-transparent USPS postage cost estimations. Further clarification and transparency regarding these costs could alleviate potential misunderstandings.
Final Considerations
In summary, the document lays out specific financial requirements involving both time and monetary expenses that individuals or entities must consider when interacting with the USPTO's process for representative and address provisions. By bringing more detailed clarity and transparency to the financial structure, the USPTO could potentially enhance understanding and compliance among the target audience.
Issues
• The document specifies a total estimated annual non-hour respondent cost burden of $22,868, which includes filing fees and postage costs. However, there is no detailed breakdown of how these costs were calculated, aside from the postage costs, which may lead to ambiguity in understanding the cost distribution.
• The document mentions a preference for electronic submission but allows for mail submission, creating potential inefficiencies due to handling physical mail despite the low expected volume (1% of submissions). The USPS postage cost estimation process isn’t fully transparent.
• The engagement with the public is stated in general terms, such as public comments being solicited for improving quality and minimizing burden, but lacks specific follow-up actions or measures to be taken.
• The text uses technical terms and references specific legal provisions (e.g., 35 U.S.C. 2, 37 CFR 1.31-1.32) that may not be easily understood by individuals outside the legal or patent professional community, leading to a potential communication barrier.
• There is a detailed listing of form numbers and type of forms, which may be confusing for the general public or those not familiar with patent processes, suggesting the need for a simplified explanation or summary.
• While the document outlines the procedure for granting and revocation of power of attorney, the sections related to rights and obligations might be complex for individuals without legal expertise.
• The document specifies that any changes to Customer Number information will be applied to all associated patents and applications, which could cause issues for users who need to manage each patent or application individually.
• The document warns about the public nature of comments and personal information but also states that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, which might deter individuals from providing candid feedback.