[Patentpractice] RO/US being slow - national security review

[Carl Oppedahl]

The correct time to do this would have been a week or two before filing 
the PCT application.  Then, with the FFL in hand, do the PCT filing in 
RO/IB instead of RO/US.

My best guess is that whatever factors have prompted this PCT 
application to get subjected to a higher-level security review, those 
factors would equally gum up a standalone petition for FFL.

On 8/9/2024 5:45 PM, Randall Svihla via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> Hi, Guy
>
> What about filing a Petition for Expedited Foreign Filing License 
> under 37 CFR 5.12(b) to see if that will jump-start the process?It 
> will require a petition fee of $220 ($88 small entity).See MPEP 140(I) 
> on MPEP pages 100-32 and 100-33.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Randall S. Svihla
>
> NSIP Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> *From:*guyvmann at gvmlaw.net <guyvmann at gvmlaw.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 9, 2024 5:04 PM
> *To:* 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice.' <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [Patentpractice] RO/US being slow - national security 
> review
>
> Yes, Randall, it is relevant. Thanks.
>
> And, yes, Carl and others who’ve responded, it is a national security 
> review that is the fly in the ointment.
>
> I know that because I reached out to the PCT Help Desk and they 
> ‘escalated’ the matter.
>
> Apparently triggered by that, I received a Form PCT/RO/132 
> communication indicating that /an IA number has been assigned/ but the 
> /Record Copy has not been transmitted/ to the IB.
>
> Well, I already knew that.  But thanks for the acknowledgement.
>
> And, the IB so far has not received a copy of the PCT/RO/132.
>
> What the communication did NOT acknowledge is that no International 
> Filing Date has been accorded, other than leaving the space for it 
> blank (as it is in PC).
>
> That appears significant since some of the deadlines in the PCT Rules 
> (WIPO) are triggered by that date.
>
> Art. 11(1) of the PCT says that *the RO /shall/ accord the IFD if the 
> Applicant has met the requirements (of Art. 11(1)*).  Doesn’t mention 
> an IA /number/.
>
> I guess the PCT/RO/132 doesn’t serve the purpose of the notification 
> prescribed by Rule 20.2(c) that, upon a Positive Determination under 
> Art. 11(1), the RO promptly shall notify the Applicant of the */IA 
> number _and IFD_/*.
>
> Meaning, I guess, that in this case there has yet to be any ‘positive 
> determination under Art. 11(1)’, even though that article does not 
> mention any national security review.
>
> Bottom line, I guess that during a security review, USPTO feels it 
> does not have to comply with Art. 11(1) and accept the application as 
> an IA.
>
> Maybe that’s because, if the security clearance doesn’t go our way, it 
> never will.
>
> Has anyone ever had any luck with a petition or request to have an IFD 
> accorded?
>
> Or better yet, jumpstarting the security clearance process by filing 
> something?
>
>   * E.g., submitting a copy of the IA as filed for certification
>       o And how would one do that if one wanted to?
>       o Is that done electronically, or hard copy only?
>
> 17 month deadline is Oct. 8^th , so not yet antsy, but thinking about it.
>
> Guy
>
> *Guy V. Manning**
> **LAW OFFICES OF GUY V. MANNING****
> *Intellectual Property Attorneys – Patent, Copyright, Trademark
> *4200 S. Hulen Street, Suite 603      Voice  (817) 294-7744* **
>
> *Fort Worth, Texas 76109  USA        Fax     (817) 294-7742 *
> guyvmann at gvmlaw.net <mailto:guyvmann at flash.net>**
>
> *NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:*This e-mail is meant only for the intended 
> recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged 
> by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, 
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
> prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail 
> and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance 
> for your cooperation.
>
> *AVISO AL RECEPTOR:*Este mensaje tiene por destinatario exclusivo a la 
> persona o entidad a la que está dirigida, y puede contener información 
> confidencial y que no puede divulgarse. Si usted recibió este mensaje 
> por error, le está prohibido divulgar, distribuir o copiar la 
> información aquí contenida. Le agradeceremos que nos notifique del 
> error inmediatamente por e-mail de respuesta y que borre este mensaje 
> de su sistema. Muchas gracias por adelantado por su cooperación.
>
> *AVISO AO RECIPIENTE:*Este e-mail é destinado apenas ao destinatário 
> da transmissão e pode conter informações protegidas por lei. Caso você 
> tenha recebido este e-mail por engano, fica absolutamente proibida a 
> sua revisão, uso, disseminação, distribuição ou cópia. Por favor 
> avise-nos imediatamente do erro e por favor, exclua a mensagem de seu 
> sistema. Desde já agradeçemos sua cooperação.
>
> *HINWEIS FÜR DEN EMPFÄNGER*: Dieses e-mail ist für das Erhalten des 
> Empfängers bezweckt und kann unter dem Gesetz als vertrauliche 
> Kommunikation gelten. Wenn Sie dieses e-mail versehentlich bekommen 
> haben sollten, jegliche Prüfung, Weiterleitung, Verbreitung 
> oder anderweitige Verwendung sowie kopieren ist strengstens verboten. 
> Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns sofort des Fehlers in dem Sie diese 
> e-mail zurück senden und bitte löschen Sie diese Nachricht von ihrem 
> System. Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihre Mitarbeit.
>
> *From:*Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Randall Svihla via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 6, 2024 6:19 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] O/US being slow (was RE: group letter)
>
> Is this relevant?
>
> PCT Receiving Office Guidelines
>
> Chapter III: National Security Clearance
>
> 32. The receiving Office, where required by the national law, reviews 
> the international application for national security matters (Rule 
> 22.1(a) <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r22.html#_22_1_a>). 
> Subject to the prescriptions of the national law, international 
> processing may continue. National security clearance should, subject 
> to paragraph 33 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ro/ro32_34.html#_33>, be given not 
> later than at the time when the transmittal of the record copy is due 
> under Rule 22.1(a) 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r22.html#_22_1_a>, that is, 
> early enough for the record copy to reach the International Bureau 
> before the expiration of the 13th month from the priority date.
>
> 33. If clearance is refused or has, by the end of the 13th month from 
> the priority date, not been obtained and is not expected to be 
> obtained, the receiving Office notifies (Form PCT/RO/147 
> <https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/forms/ro/editable/ed-ro147.pdf>) 
> the applicant and the International Bureau that the record copy and 
> the search copy will not be transmitted and that the international 
> application will not be treated as such.  If national security 
> clearance is expected to be obtained soon, the receiving Office may 
> postpone its decision to no longer treat the international application 
> as such but must make the said decision and send the invitation before 
> the expiration of 17 months from the priority date if no clearance has 
> been received by that time (Section 330 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ai/s330.html> and paragraphs 285 to 
> 287 <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ro/ro285_287.html#_285>).
>
> 34. For refund of fees where any prescriptions concerning national 
> security prevent transmittal of the record copy and search copy, see 
> Rules 15.4(iii) 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r15.html#_15_4_iii> and 
> 16.2(iii) 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/r16.html#_16_2_iii> and 
> paragraphs 268 to 271 
> <https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ro/ro268_271.html#_268>.
>
> *From:*Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 6, 2024 6:36 PM
> *To:* 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice.' <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] O/US being slow (was RE: group letter)
>
> A reminder of the importance of using RO/IB whenever you can.
>
> Even though the PCT Help Desk did not mention a security review, I am 
> confident that is the actual explanation for the delay.
>
> The way you will know this for sure is when you receive the letter 
> telling you when they granted the FFL.  I predict it will turn out 
> that the FFL got granted only a day or two before the record copy got 
> sent to the IB.
>
> On 8/6/2024 12:46 PM, guyvmann at gvmlaw.net wrote:
>
>     Sort of related question:
>
>     Why would it take the USPTO as RO almost */three months (and
>     counting) to transmit the IA to the IB/*?
>
>     Details:
>
>     IA filed May 7, 2024;  IA number assigned by RO and appears in PC
>
>     Fees show paid.  Same $ amount shows in ePCT fee calc. sheet,
>     doubtless derived from the Request
>
>      1. i.e., they’ve been holding about $ 3800 of client’s money for
>         nearly 3 months now
>
>     Priority claim to US provisional filed May 8, 2023 is recognized
>     in the PC record.
>
>     PC’s status shows:  “Application Undergoing Preexam
>     Processing 05/07/2024”
>
>     Case shows up in ePCT, with relevant info from Request (document
>     sizes, names, etc.) which was entered into ePCT to generate the
>     zip file, of course.
>
>     But ePCT says:
>
>      1. No IA number assigned (to be assigned by RO)
>      2. Priority claim too late (but don’t worry about it if you filed
>         the IA timely)
>
>     In other words, the IB hasn’t heard from the RO since I downloaded
>     the zip file.
>
>     And, of course, the expected ISA search and report (EPO) hasn’t
>     even begun yet because the IB doesn’t have what it needs.
>
>     *Are others experiencing this kind of delay?*
>
>     *I’m not sure whose cage to rattle about this.*
>
>     Guy
>
>     *Guy V. Manning**
>     **LAW OFFICES OF GUY V. MANNING****
>     *Intellectual Property Attorneys – Patent, Copyright, Trademark
>     *4200 S. Hulen Street, Suite 603      Voice  (817) 294-7744*
>
>     *Fort Worth, Texas 76109  USA        Fax     (817) 294-7742 *
>     guyvmann at gvmlaw.net <mailto:guyvmann at flash.net>**
>
>     *NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:*This e-mail is meant only for the intended
>     recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication
>     privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any
>     review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
>     is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error
>     by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system.
>     Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>
>     *AVISO AL RECEPTOR:*Este mensaje tiene por destinatario exclusivo
>     a la persona o entidad a la que está dirigida, y puede contener
>     información confidencial y que no puede divulgarse. Si usted
>     recibió este mensaje por error, le está prohibido divulgar,
>     distribuir o copiar la información aquí contenida. Le
>     agradeceremos que nos notifique del error inmediatamente por
>     e-mail de respuesta y que borre este mensaje de su sistema. Muchas
>     gracias por adelantado por su cooperación.
>
>     *AVISO AO RECIPIENTE:*Este e-mail é destinado apenas ao
>     destinatário da transmissão e pode conter informações protegidas
>     por lei. Caso você tenha recebido este e-mail por engano, fica
>     absolutamente proibida a sua revisão, uso, disseminação,
>     distribuição ou cópia. Por favor avise-nos imediatamente do erro e
>     por favor, exclua a mensagem de seu sistema. Desde já agradeçemos
>     sua cooperação.
>
>     *HINWEIS FÜR DEN EMPFÄNGER*: Dieses e-mail ist für das Erhalten
>     des Empfängers bezweckt und kann unter dem Gesetz als vertrauliche
>     Kommunikation gelten. Wenn Sie dieses e-mail versehentlich
>     bekommen haben sollten, jegliche Prüfung,
>     Weiterleitung, Verbreitung oder anderweitige Verwendung sowie
>     kopieren ist strengstens verboten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns
>     sofort des Fehlers in dem Sie diese e-mail zurück senden und bitte
>     löschen Sie diese Nachricht von ihrem System. Vielen Dank im
>     Voraus für Ihre Mitarbeit.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240809/d16db890/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240809/d16db890/attachment.p7s>