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

Sat Aug 10 00:25:28 UTC 2024

The related thought is that the priority application probably already 
had an FFL.  If the PCT application is substantively the same as the 
priority application, then the FFL from the priority application would 
have made it okay to file in RO/IB.  And then this problem would never 
have arisen.

Whenever I am a couple of weeks away from filing a PCT, I look to see 
whether there is any risk the to-be-filed PCT application might exceed 
the disclosure in the priority application.  If so, I file it again as 
another provisional.  This provisional probably receives an FFL for the 
same reasons that the previous provisional received an FFL.  At that 
point, it is okay to file in RO/IB and then this kind of problem is avoided.

Not only that, but the PCT rules-based IBR is then able to draw upon 
that most recent provisional if needed.

I covered all of this in my PCT class as you see here:

    https://blog.oppedahl.com/attend-a-2%C2%BD-day-live-in-person-patent-cooperation-treaty-seminar-in-beautiful-summit-county-colorado/

  Hopefully the next time I present this class, the reader can be among 
the attendees.

On 8/9/2024 6:02 PM, Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> 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/ba6ff310/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/ba6ff310/attachment.p7s>