Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations
| Published date | 01 October 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 51977 |
| Record Number | 2019-20908 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Patent And Trademark Office |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51977-51982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20908]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Parts 1 and 42
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2017-0034]
RIN 0651-AD25
Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) hereby amends the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases and Trial
Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by removing
provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations that are no longer
necessary. This final rule removes the rules governing reservation
clauses, petitions from the refusal of a primary examiner to admit an
amendment, the publication of amendments to the regulations, and limits
that the Director can impose on the number of inter partes reviews and
[[Page 51978]]
post-grant reviews heard by the PTAB. USPTO has evaluated existing
regulations to identify those that should be repealed, replaced, or
modified because they are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, costly,
or unduly burdensome to both government and private-sector operations.
USPTO carried out this work, in part, through its participation in the
Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force), which the Department of
Commerce (Department or Commerce) established in accordance with
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.''
Removal of the regulations identified in this final rule achieves the
objective of making USPTO regulations more effective and more
streamlined, while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 31, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-7728, for questions
regarding the changes to 37 CFR 1.79 and/or 1.127; Scott C.
Weidenfeller, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, Patent Trial and
Appeal Board, by email at [email protected], or by telephone
at (571) 272-8723, for questions regarding the changes to 37 CFR part
42; and Nicolas Oettinger, Senior Counsel for Regulatory and
Legislative Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-7832, for
questions regarding the change to 37 CFR 1.351 and general questions
regarding regulatory reform.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
To support its regulatory reform efforts as a participant in the
Task Force, the USPTO assembled a Working Group on Regulatory Reform
(Working Group), consisting of subject-matter experts from each of the
business units that implement the USPTO's regulations, to consider,
review, and recommend ways that the regulations could be improved,
revised, and streamlined. In considering the revisions, the USPTO,
through its Working Group, incorporated into its analyses all
presidential directives relating to regulatory reform. The Working
Group reviewed existing regulations, both discretionary rules and those
required by statute or judicial order. The USPTO also solicited
comments from stakeholders through a web page established to provide
information on the USPTO's regulatory reform efforts and through the
Department's Federal Register Notice titled ``Impact of Federal
Regulations on Domestic Manufacturing'' (82 FR 12786, Mar. 7, 2017),
which addressed the impact of regulatory burdens on domestic
manufacturing. These efforts led to the development of candidate
regulations for removal, based on the USPTO's assessment that these
regulations were not needed and/or that elimination could improve the
USPTO's body of regulations. This rule removes certain patent- and
PTAB-related regulations in 37 CFR part 1 and part 42. As described
below, USPTO also considered comments received on the proposed rule,
which was published on January 19, 2018 (83 FR 2159). This final rule
makes no changes to the repeals included in the proposed rule. Other
rules removing regulations on other subject areas have been published
separately.
II. Regulations Being Removed
This rule removes the regulations concerning reservation clauses,
petitions from the refusal of a primary examiner to admit an amendment,
and publication of amendments to the regulations in 37 CFR part 1. The
rule also removes the regulations concerning limits that the Director
can impose on the number of inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews
in 37 CFR part 42.
In particular, this rule removes 37 CFR 1.79. Section 1.79
prohibits reservation clauses, i.e., it prohibits a pending patent
application from containing a reservation for a future patent
application of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the pending
application. An applicant's ability to claim benefit of a prior
application is affirmatively provided elsewhere in statute and
regulation, and the explicit prohibition of Sec. 1.79 on reservation
clauses (which do not confer this benefit) dates from a time when the
mechanism for properly claiming benefit of a prior application was less
clear and less fully developed in USPTO's regulations and guidance. The
removal of Sec. 1.79 is not an endorsement of reservation clauses nor
an invitation for applicants to include reservation clauses in
applications. The Office does not expect the use of reservation clauses
to significantly increase, because such reservation clauses provide no
legal benefit, regardless of Sec. 1.79. For example, the inclusion of
a reservation clause in a pending application would not change any of
the requirements for a future application to benefit from the earlier
filing date of the pending application. The authority for the future
application to benefit from the earlier filing date of the pending
application would stem, as it does now, from the fulfillment of
requirements set forth in statutory and regulatory provisions in which
a reservation clause plays no role, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR
1.78. Nor would the inclusion of a reservation clause protect against
rejections for statutory or nonstatutory double patenting. In view of
the fact that the inclusion of a reservation clause provides no legal
benefit, and given that the affirmative ability to claim benefit of a
prior application is more fully and completely described elsewhere in
USPTO's regulations and guidance (unlike when Sec. 1.79 was first
adopted), the prohibition of reservation clauses in Sec. 1.79 is
unnecessary.
Section 1.79 also permits a patent application disclosing unclaimed
subject matter to contain a reference to a later-filed application of
the same applicant or owned by a common assignee disclosing and
claiming that subject matter. This provision of Sec. 1.79 is
duplicative and therefore unnecessary. Section 1.78 provides for cross-
references to other applications, including cross-references to
applications for which a benefit is not claimed, which encompasses the
later-filed applications identified in Sec. 1.79. Thus, applicants
will continue to be able to include in a pending application a
reference to a later-filed application as currently provided for in
Sec. 1.79.
This rule removes Sec. 1.127, which also is duplicative. Section
1.127 indicates that a petition to the Director under 37 CFR 1.181 may
be filed upon a refusal by a primary examiner to admit an amendment, in
whole or in part. Section 1.127 is unnecessary. The language of Sec.
1.181(a)(1) makes clear that any action or requirement of any examiner
in the ex parte prosecution of an application, or in ex parte or inter
partes prosecution of a reexamination proceeding, which is not subject
to appeal to the PTAB or to a court, is petitionable to the Director. A
refusal by a primary examiner to admit an amendment constitutes an
action or requirement of an examiner and is not subject to appeal to
the PTAB or to a court. Thus, applicants will continue to be able to
petition to the Director under Sec. 1.181 the refusal by a primary
examiner to admit an amendment, in whole or in part.
This rule additionally removes 37 CFR 1.351. Section 1.351 states
that all amendments to the regulations in 37 CFR part 1 will be
published in the Official Gazette and in the Federal Register. Section
1.351 is unnecessary. In accordance with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and guidance from the Office of
[[Page 51979]]
Management and Budget (OMB), the Office publishes any amendments to 37
CFR part 1 in the Federal Register. The APA generally requires the
Office to give public notice of any regulatory change, and OMB's
guidance with respect to rulemaking makes clear that publication in the
Federal Register is the required means for giving public notice. Given
that publication in the Official Gazette is entirely duplicative of
publication in the Federal Register, the Office no longer intends to
make these duplicate publications of amendments to regulations in the
Official Gazette.
Finally, this rule removes 37 CFR 42.102(b) and 42.202(b), both of
which are now out of date. Section 42.102(b) provides that the Director
may impose a limit on the number of inter partes reviews that may be
instituted during each of the first four one-year periods that the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is in effect. Section 42.202(b)
has a similar provision for post-grant reviews. Neither rule remains
necessary because the fourth anniversary of the effective date of the
AIA has passed.
Removal of the regulations identified in this rule achieves the
objective of making the USPTO regulations more effective and more
streamlined, while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. The
USPTO's economic analysis shows that while the removal of these
regulations is not expected to substantially reduce the burden on the
impacted community, the regulations are nonetheless being eliminated
because they are ``outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective'' regulations
encompassed by the directives in Executive Order 13777.
III. Proposed Rule: Comments and Responses
The USPTO published a proposed rule on January 19, 2018, at 83 FR
2759, soliciting comments on the proposed amendments. In response, the
USPTO received eight comments relevant to the proposed rule from five
commenters. None of the comments expresses disapproval for the proposed
amendments. Four of the comments propose additional rules for revision
or removal. The comments are addressed below.
Two comments propose revising or removing 37 CFR 1.83(a). According
to these comments, Sec. 1.83(a), which states that ``[t]he drawing in
a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention
specified in the claims,'' is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. 113, which
states that ``[t]he applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary
for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.''
The Office has considered the comments concerning Sec. 1.83(a) but is
not revising or removing the regulation. Consistent with 35 U.S.C. 113,
Office regulations already limit the requirement to furnish a drawing
to cases where the drawing is necessary for the understanding of the
subject matter sought to be patented. See 37 CFR 1.81(a). Section
1.83(a) merely adds that when a drawing is required in accordance with
35 U.S.C. 113 and Sec. 1.81(a), the drawing must show every feature of
the invention specified in the claims. Moreover, Sec. 1.83(a) permits
conventional features, a detailed illustration of which is not
essential for a proper understanding of the invention, to be
illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or
a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). Thus, Sec.
1.83(a) strikes a balance between maintaining a high level of quality
for prior art (drawings in accordance with Sec. 1.83 improve the
understanding of the claimed subject matter in pre-grant publications
and issued patents) and mitigating the drawing burden on applicants.
Two comments propose revising or removing the requirement for a
certified copy of the foreign application to be filed when making a
claim for foreign priority under 37 CFR 1.55. One of the two comments
proposes removing each instance of ``certified'' from Sec. 1.55, such
that Sec. 1.55 instead would require only a copy of the foreign
application. The other comment proposes allowing applicants to submit
certified copies of foreign applications electronically through the
Office's Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web), or in the alternative,
eliminating the requirement for a certified copy.
The Office has considered the comments concerning Sec. 1.55 but is
not revising or removing the requirement for a certified copy of the
foreign application to be filed when making a claim for foreign
priority. A critical reason for the requirement under Sec. 1.55 to
provide a certified copy of a foreign patent application is that the
foreign priority date could be a prior art date under 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(2). Without the requirement, the examiner and any member of the
public interested in evaluating a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art date
would be burdened with obtaining an actual certified copy of the
priority document to do a complete analysis. This burden would be
particularly acute for an examiner or member of the public seeking a
certified copy from a jurisdiction with poor record-keeping practices.
Furthermore, the Office continues to make progress on alleviating
applicants' burden of providing a certified copy under Sec. 1.55
through its electronic priority document exchange (PDX) program. The
PDX program facilitates compliance with the certified copy requirement
under Sec. 1.55 through two modes of exchange with participating
foreign offices: Direct bilateral exchange and exchange via the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Digital Access Service (DAS)
for Priority Documents. As of December 1, 2018, the Office
electronically retrieves certified copies of foreign applications filed
with 18 WIPO DAS depositing offices. For more information on the PDX
program, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx. For
instances in which the certified copy required by Sec. 1.55 must be
obtained from a jurisdiction not currently participating in the PDX
program, the burden of providing the certified copy is mitigated by 37
CFR 1.55(j). Section 1.55(j) provides for an ``interim copy'' procedure
that gives an applicant more time to obtain and file the actual
certified copy.
One comment proposes revising the requirement for an assignee to
establish its right to take action under 37 CFR 3.73(c) so that it no
longer applies ``to the original applicants named in patent
applications subject to the AIA.'' The Office has considered the
comment concerning Sec. 3.73(c) but is not revising the regulation.
The language of Sec. 3.73(c)(1) already excludes an assignee who is
the original applicant from the purview of Sec. 3.73(c) (``In order to
request or take action in a patent matter, an assignee who is not the
original applicant must establish its ownership of the patent property
of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the
Director.''). As stated in Sec. 3.73(a), ``[t]he original applicant is
presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and
any patent that may issue therefrom.''
One comment identifies a number of initiatives undertaken by the
Office, including the Collaborative Search Pilot Program, the
Cooperative Patent Classification system, Global Dossier, and the
Patent Prosecution Highway. The comment states that as a result of the
initiatives, the requirement under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) for an applicant
to provide the Office copies of foreign patent documents is
unnecessarily burdensome where the documents have been cited in the
prosecution of another application, including an international
application, for which the applicant has notified the Office. The
comment
[[Page 51980]]
proposes either removing Sec. 1.98(a)(2) or revising Sec. 1.98(d) so
that it would not be necessary to provide a copy of any patent,
publication, pending U.S. application or other information, if the
patent, publication, pending U.S. application or other information was
previously submitted to, or cited by, the Office in another
application, including later-filed or co-filed U.S. or international
applications and applications not relied on for an earlier effective
filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, and the other application has been
properly identified in an information disclosure statement (IDS).
The Office has considered the comment concerning Sec. 1.98(a)(2)
and (d) but is not removing Sec. 1.98(a)(2) or revising Sec. 1.98(d).
The relevant initiatives that the Office currently is undertaking,
including relevant initiatives identified by the comment, are not
sufficient to permit removing Sec. 1.98(a)(2) or revising Sec.
1.98(d) in the proposed manner. The Office, however, continues to make
progress on reducing applicants' burden in connection with the duty of
disclosure. As of November 1, 2018, the Office has implemented the
first phase of the Access to Relevant Prior Art Initiative (RPA
Initiative). See Access to Relevant Prior Art Initiative, 83 FR 53853
(Oct. 25, 2018). The RPA Initiative leverages electronic resources to
improve examiners' access to relevant information from applicants'
other related applications. In the first phase, the Office is importing
the citations listed on forms PTO/SB/08 (or equivalents) and PTO-892 in
the immediate parent application into the continuing application. The
first phase consists of a targeted release of a newly developed
interface to a subgroup of examiners from a limited number of selected
art units. In subsequent phases of the RPA Initiative, the Office will
consider providing examiners access to citation information from other
sources such as other related U.S. applications, international
applications under the PCT, and counterpart foreign applications of the
same applicant. The selection of these sources and the timetable for
expansion will be dictated, at least in part, by evaluating the first
phase, including feedback on the RPA Initiative from the public and
examiners. In addition, the USPTO plans to include more examiners in
subsequent phases when the RPA Initiative proves scalable.
One comment notes that 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(ii) requires applicants to
file an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or a
substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, no later than the
date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid. The comment
proposes revising Sec. 1.53(f)(3)(ii) to provide a time period to
correct a defective oath, declaration, or substitute statement
submitted no later than the date on which the issue fee for the patent
is paid, but found defective after the date at which the issue fee is
paid. The Office has considered the comment concerning Sec.
1.53(f)(3)(ii) but is not revising the regulation. The requested
revision is precluded by statute. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 115(f) states
that ``[t]he applicant for patent shall provide each required oath or
declaration under subsection (a), substitute statement under subsection
(d), or recorded assignment meeting the requirements of subsection (e)
no later than the date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid.''
One comment generally supports the proposed amendments as meeting
the stated objectives. The USPTO appreciates this input.
All of the comments are posted on the USPTO's website at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/comments-public/comments-changes-eliminate-unnecessary-regulations.
IV. Discussion of Rules Changes
Part 1
Section 1.79: Section 1.79 is removed and reserved.
Section 1.127: Section 1.127 is removed and reserved.
Section 1.351: Section 1.351 is removed and reserved.
Part 42
Section 42.102(b): Section 42.102(b) is removed and reserved.
Section 42.202(b): Section 42.202(b) is removed and reserved.
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking
involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive
rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015)
(Interpretive rules ``advise the public of the agency's construction of
the statutes and rules which it administers.'' (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y
of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that
clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow
Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (DC Cir. 2001) (Rules governing
an application process are procedural under the Administrative
Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350
(4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they
did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for
the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-
and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency ``issue[s]
an initial interpretive rule'' nor ``when it amends or repeals that
interpretive rule.''); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-
37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C.
2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A))). However, the Office chose to seek public comment before
implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein,
the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Office of
General Law, of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rule removes the provisions at 37 CFR 1.79, concerning the
prohibition of reservation clauses, Sec. 1.127, concerning petitions
from refusal to admit amendment, and Sec. 1.351, concerning the
publication of amendments to rules. These regulations are removed
because they are not necessary. This rule also removes 37 CFR 42.102(b)
and 42.202(b), which provide that the Director may impose a limit on
the number of inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews that may be
instituted during each of the first four one-year periods that the AIA
is in effect. These regulations are no longer necessary because the
fourth anniversary of the effective date of the AIA has passed.
Removing these regulations achieves the objective of making the
USPTO regulations more effective and more streamlined, while enabling
the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. The removal of these
regulations is not expected to substantively impact parties. Parties
either will continue to be able to take the same action under a
different regulatory provision, or the rights or obligations of the
parties will not change in any way. For these reasons, this rulemaking
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
[[Page 51981]]
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18,
2011). Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and
applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify
the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden
on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3)
selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4)
specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available
alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of
information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines,
affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole,
and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to
promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across
government agencies and identified goals designed to promote
innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the
objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.
E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs): This rule is a deregulatory action under Executive
Order 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017).
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking
will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr.
21, 1997).
K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This
rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
L. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO
will submit a report containing the final rule and other required
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government
Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to
result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this notice is not expected to result in a ``major rule'' as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in
this notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any
one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the
expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted)
or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.
N. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have
any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because
this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of
technical standards.
P. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the impact of
paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the
public. This rulemaking does not involve an information collection that
is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom
of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
37 CFR Part 42
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents,
Lawyers.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office amends parts 1
and 42 of title 37 as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
Sec. 1.79 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Section 1.79 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 1.127 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Section 1.127 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 1.351 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Section 1.351 is removed and reserved and the undesignated center
heading above it, ``Amendment of Rules,'' is removed.
[[Page 51982]]
PART 42--TRIAL PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
0
5. The authority citation for part 42 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 6, 21, 23, 41, 135, 311, 312, 316,
321-326; Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284; and Pub. L. 112-274, 126
Stat. 2456.
Sec. 42.102 [Amended]
0
6. Amend section 42.102 by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
Sec. 42.202 [Amended]
0
7. Section 42.202 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
Dated: September 19, 2019.
Andrei Iancu,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-20908 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
