<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"
style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Note: the original posting was too big for
the listserv. The would-be attachment (the November 20, 2024 FR
notice) can be obtained <a
href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/20/2024-26821/setting-and-adjusting-patent-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025">here</a>.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So here is what our listmate wanted to post:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you are likely aware, effective January
19, 2025, the USPTO is requiring that each IDS contain a written
assertion relating to the cumulative number of citations made by
an applicant in a patent application.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The count is based on the number of items
listed on an IDS, not the number of references submitted. Each
IDS filed from 1/19 on must contain this assertion and must
state the specific fee that is being submitted, if any,
corresponding to the cumulative reference count.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the attached FR notice, the USPTO stated <b><i><u>it
was amending 37 CFR § 1.98(a)<o:p></o:p></u></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i>\u201cto include a new
content requirement for an IDS that will facilitate
implementation of the IDS size fee. Specifically, the USPTO is
requiring that an IDS contain a clear written assertion by the
applicant and patent owner that the IDS is accompanied by the
appropriate IDS size fee or that no IDS size fee is required.
This assertion is necessary because it ensures the record is
clear as to which fee the applicant or patent owner believes
may be due (or that no fee may be due) with the IDS so the
examiner can promptly ascertain whether the IDS is compliant.
There is no specific language required for the written
assertion, but it should be readily identifiable on the IDS
and clearly convey the applicable IDS size fee by specifying
the particular paragraph in § 1.17(v) that applies (e.g.,
\u2018\u2018the fee due under 1.17(v)(2)\u2019\u2019), if any.\u201d<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have not found any amendments to 37 CFR
1.98(a) outlining the content requirement. Additionally,
despite their prior representation to me (also attached), no
forms have been made available to us for use.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shouldn\u2019t this amendment to the CFR be made
BEFORE the rule is effective?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The FR notice also said that \u201can
authorization to charge fees to a deposit account is not a
compliant written assertion under the new § 1.98(a) requirement,
unless the authorization clearly identifies the particular IDS
size fee that should be charged for submission of a particular
IDS.\u201d<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i>For example,
language such as \u2018\u2018the Director is authorized to charge the §
1.17(v)(2)* fee for the IDS submitted on July 1, 2026 to
deposit account XX\u2013XXXXX\u2019\u2019 would be a compliant written
assertion because reference to paragraph (v)(2) particularly
identifies the IDS size fee due, but language such as \u2018\u2018the
Director is authorized to charge any applicable IDS size fee
to deposit account XX\u2013XXXXX\u2019\u2019 would not be a compliant written
assertion because it fails to establish which IDS size fee is
due. General authorizations to charge fees to a deposit
account are not compliant written assertions under the new §
1.98(a) requirement.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What new requirement is there if the CFR has
not been amended?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">IDS filings made after January 19 that do not
include the written assertion or size fee will not be considered
by the Examiner \u2013 only placed in the file. The applicant, upon
learning of the non-consideration may file a new IDS with the
requisite assertion and fee submission but the <b><u>date the
new IDS is filed will be the date of the IDS</u></b> for the
purpose of determining §1.97 compliance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, here is my question \u2026 if they have not
provided us with the amended CFR, and/or if they have not
amended the CFR is this rule enforceable?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I called OPLA today and left a message asking
when we would see the amended CFR. I have not received a call
back yet.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am but a lowly paralegal but this seems
pretty derelict on the part of the USPTO. This \u201cfee rule\u201d seems
way beyond the scope of simple fee setting and adds a
significant burden on the applicant. The USPTO has stated that
the purpose of this rule is deter what they call \u201cclearly
irrelevant and, marginally relevant, or cumulative
information.\u201d They further state that current IDS practice is
\u201conerous for examiners and hinders the USPTO\u2019s statutory
obligation to timely examine applications \u2026\u201d<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That sounds more punitive than a fee rule
made in good faith, especially when the USPTO goes on in the FR
notice to say that they tried to address this in 2006 but the
proposal was not adopted \u2013 \u201cinstead, to provide some relief for
examiners burdened with large IDS submissions, the agency began
providing examiners additional time to consider large IDS
submissions in applications.\u201d
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They then go on to claim the agency spends
$10 million annually for examiners to consider IDS submissions.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In defense of the new requirement, the USPTO
states that less than 15% of all applicants will have to pay the
size fee for the IDS filings. Okay, that may be true but 100%
of all applicants have to adopt the written assertion
requirement or face the consequence of having an IDS going
unconsidered until it is too late to certify.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What are your thoughts on this? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Can this requirement
be enforced without amendments to the CFR?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Is this truly within
the scope of their fee setting authority?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">The complete lack of
transparency leading up to this rule change feels like bad faith
to me. Is the PTO really getting this sloppy?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interested in your opinion(s).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks in advance,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pam<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sub>****<o:p></o:p></sub></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pamela Cei Brisky<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Senior Patent Paralegal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fujitsu North America, Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(571) 216-2112 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">pbrisky@fujitsu.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sub><o:p> </o:p></sub></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>