Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Patent Petitions Related to Application and Reexamination Processing Fees
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government office in charge of patents wants to hear what people think about how it collects information for some patent paperwork and fees, which helps them organize and make things easier for everyone. They want comments from the public because filling out these forms can take a little or a lot of time, and they want to make sure everything is fair and clear.
Summary AI
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public comments on the renewal of an information collection related to patent petitions and reexamination processing fees. This collection is crucial for the USPTO to manage the impact of its information requirements and lessen the burden on the public. On average, individuals may spend between five minutes to 12 hours completing each response, depending on complexity, which generates a total annual burden of about 72,958 hours. Interested parties can review or comment on this collection through specified online resources within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document in question is a notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), part of the Commerce Department, regarding an information collection associated with patent petitions related to application and reexamination processing fees. This notice indicates that the USPTO is seeking comments from the public concerning the renewal of this information collection. The goal is to assess how these requirements impact the agency and how to minimize the reporting burden on the public. The USPTO provides an opportunity for additional public comments within 30 days following the publication of this notice. The document outlines several key details, including the number of respondents, the estimated time burden for each response, and the associated non-hour cost burden.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises some significant issues due to its technical nature and the lack of detailed explanations in certain sections:
Unclear Details on Petitions: The document does not specify the exact types of patent petitions covered under this information collection. Such lack of specificity might confuse respondents who are unsure if their petition qualifies.
Vague Time Estimates: The range provided for the time required to respond (from 5 minutes to 12 hours) is quite broad. Without precise guidance, respondents might find it challenging to prepare their submissions, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
Cost Breakdown: While the document provides a total annual non-hour cost burden, it lacks a detailed breakdown of these costs, which could help stakeholders better understand any financial obligations they might face.
Technical Language and References: The notice uses specific legal references to regulations without providing context or explanation. Such jargon can be difficult for non-experts to decipher, limiting public engagement and understanding.
Respondent Data Transparency: The lack of explanation regarding how respondent numbers and burden hours were calculated could lead to questions about the validity and methodology underlying these figures.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broadly, the information collection detailed in this document impacts individuals and entities involved in the patent application process, particularly those filing petitions related to the processing fees. The estimated time and cost burdens might deter some stakeholders from participating in this important administrative process. Additionally, the complexity and potential opacity of the process might create challenges for those without prior experience with USPTO procedures.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as patent attorneys, applicants, and businesses heavily reliant on intellectual property, are likely to be directly affected. On the positive side, the collection helps the USPTO streamline its processing efficiency and maintain structured records, potentially benefiting patent applicants by accelerating processing times. However, for individual inventors or small businesses, the associated time and cost burdens could pose significant hurdles, possibly leading to disenfranchisement within the patent system. These stakeholders might benefit from clearer guidance and better communication to ease the burden and improve compliance.
In conclusion, while the notice aims to collect crucial feedback to enhance the efficacy of the USPTO’s processes, the lack of clarity and potential complexity of the requirements may hinder rather than help public participation. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments or request further clarifications to ensure these processes are accessible and manageable for all parties involved.
Financial Assessment
In the Federal Register document submitted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning patent petitions related to application and reexamination processing fees, there is a notable reference to the financial aspect of the information collection process. The Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden is identified as $3,195,134. This figure represents the anticipated costs associated with the processing of patent petitions beyond the time commitment required from respondents.
These non-hour costs typically include fees necessary for submitting various types of petitions related to patent applications and reexamination processes. However, the document does not provide a breakdown of what these costs include or how they are distributed among the different petition types and associated processes. This lack of detail may contribute to the complexity mentioned in the identified issues, as it does not clarify to potential respondents the financial commitment they might expect when interacting with the USPTO concerning these matters.
Furthermore, the document refers generally to the cost burden without detailing the specific uses of these funds. Such an explanation could illuminate the individual costs corresponding to different actions or submissions required by the process, offering potential clarity to respondents. With the absence of detailed cost allocation, respondents might have difficulty assessing the full financial impact of their involvement in the procedures covered by this collection request.
The document touches on other details such as the average hour per response, which ranges significantly from 5 minutes to 12 hours, yet does not correlate this information to financial implications directly. This wide range could reflect varying levels of complexity across different types of petitions and the consequent variance in potential fees, yet this is not explicitly stated.
For individuals or organizations looking to submit opinions during the additional 30-day comment period, it would be beneficial for the USPTO to consider providing a more detailed explanation of these financial implications. Clar
Issues
• The document does not specify the exact nature of the petitions covered by the information collection, which could make it unclear for respondents.
• The 'Average Hour per Response' section provides a broad range of 5 minutes to 12 hours, which may be too vague and not helpful for respondents to gauge the complexity or time requirement of their submissions.
• The dollar amount for the 'Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden' is provided, but there's no breakdown or explanation of what these costs entail.
• Language such as 'required to obtain or retain benefits' in 'Respondent's Obligation' is somewhat vague and may require further clarification to understand the specific obligations or consequences.
• The document frequently relies on references to federal regulations (e.g., 37 CFR 1.17(f), (g), or (h)) without explanation, making it potentially difficult for non-experts to understand the implications.
• There is no direct mention of how the estimated respondent numbers and burden hours were calculated, which could raise concerns about the accuracy or methodology used.