FR 2024-29959

The document from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) discusses a formal process whereby the public is invited to comment on an information collection initiative related to patent applications. The "first inventor to file" system, as highlighted in the document, results from legislative changes brought by the America Invents Act (AIA). Initially, the comment period began in October 2024 for 60 days, and this notice extends the discussion by an additional 30 days.

Summary

The USPTO is required by law to examine the paperwork burden that its processes place on the public. This particular information collection is part of a regulatory compliance check for patent applications filed after March 16, 2013. These applications are impacted by significant legal shifts due to the AIA, including moving from a system favoring the "first to invent" to favoring the "first inventor to file." The goal is to streamline processes and ensure that applications adhere to updated requirements stemming from changes to patent laws under sections 102 and 103 of the U.S. Code.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A key issue is the document’s reliance on complex legal language and statutory references that might be inaccessible to the general public. Terms like "35 U.S.C. 102 and 103" and the nuances of patent law changes are not commonly understood and could make it difficult for a layperson to engage meaningfully with the comment process. There is also concern about the relevance of detailing a mere $1 increase in non-hourly costs; while precise, such minor details might appear trivial in the broader context.

Public Impact

This document is of relevance to inventors and patent applicants, particularly those involved in industries reliant on intellectual property laws. The extended comment period is intended to ensure enough public input is gathered to balance the administrative burden with the need for information accuracy and compliance.

Impact on Stakeholders

For stakeholders like small inventors and patent attorneys, these discussions are crucial. They stand at the intersection of legal compliance and the opportunity to influence USPTO procedures that could simplify the application process. The complexity of the language, however, could become a barrier, particularly for smaller entities that may not have the legal resources to decipher the implications without professional assistance.

Conclusion

In sum, while the document serves an administrative need and opens pathways for public input, its impact could be hampered by the absence of clear, simplified explanations of its importance and potential effects. Both the intended reduction in process burden and opportunities for streamlining should be communicated in ways that engage a wider audience, ensuring all stakeholders can contribute effectively to shaping patent regulation.

The document involves financial references related to the submission of an information collection request by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These references are largely concerned with the costs associated with complying with the information collection requirements outlined in the notice.

One of the main financial references in the document is the non-hourly cost burden. For this particular collection request, an adjustment has been made, resulting in a nominal increase of $1. This adjustment is attributed to an increase in the postage rate since the last announcement was made during the preceding 60-day notice period. While the increase appears trivial, it reflects an effort by the agency to update their cost estimations based on the most current postage rates. This sort of adjustment ensures that the financial burden on respondents is accurately represented, even though the update might seem insignificant.

Additionally, the document states an estimated total annual respondent non-hourly cost burden of $11. This figure represents costs unrelated to the time it takes respondents to complete the necessary paperwork, such as mailing or electronic submission expenses. These non-hourly costs are crucial to consider, as they can affect the willingness or ability of respondents from the private sector to engage with the information collection process.

In the context of the issues identified earlier, such financial allocations underscore the agency's responsibility to manage and communicate costs carefully, no matter how small. From a broader perspective, the reference to a $1 increase might appear wasteful or trivial, yet it signifies the agency's attention to detail in maintaining accurate records of costs impacting the public. However, it could also be perceived as lacking in relevance due to the negligible sum involved.

By maintaining transparency around these financial references, the USPTO aims to enhance public understanding and engagement in the procedural aspects influenced by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Careful communication of these costs, both large and small, supports a clearer public perception of their role in the administrative process and encourages informed participation in the public comment period.