Improving Patent Quality: Six Topics Selected for Case Studies at PPAC

Author: David C. Seastrunk
Editor: Adriana L. Burgy

On May 5, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) held their quarterly meeting, where they revealed six topics recently selected to undergo case studies as part of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EQPI). During a case study, the USPTO reviews a single, specific, quality-related issue. This review will be performed by the USPTO itself, as opposed to standard reviews completed by the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA).

Stakeholders are clearly concerned with the USPTO’s recent usage of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in rejections, as of the six topics selected, three were directed squarely at § 101:

(1) compliance of rejections with § 101 Official Guidance,

(2) consistency of application of § 101 across Art Units and Technology Centers, and

(3) use of compact prosecution when making § 101 rejections.

The other topics selected were:

(4) correctness and clarity of motivation statements in making § 103 rejections,

(5) enforcement of § 112(a) written description in continuing applications, and

(6) consistent treatment of claims after May 2014 with respect to § 112(f).

To gather these topics, the USPTO invited stakeholders to submit their own ideas on patent quality-related issues. Topic submissions were sought from stakeholders in order to draw on their experience, with the goal of using the study’s results to better understand the USPTO’s own internal work products and processes. In doing so, the USPTO hopes this will identify quality issues, examples of examination best practices, and areas where further training of examiners may be needed. To find out more information on topic submission, or to submit your own topic for future consideration, see the USPTO’s website.

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: