\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.write('
   
 Click PRINT button to print    
   
   
\n') newwin.document.write(str) newwin.document.write('
close
\n') newwin.document.write('\n') newwin.document.close() } //--> Please use your    Go Back Key Image     key to return to the previous page.

 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint Table of Contents 1414 OG 1 

OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

May 5, 2015Volume 1414Number 1

CONTENTS

 Patent and Trademark Office NoticesPage 
• Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information1414 OG 2
• Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable1414 OG 6
• Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee1414 OG 7
• Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 04/06/20151414 OG 35
• Reissue Applications Filed1414 OG 36
• Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed1414 OG 38
• Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew1414 OG 39
• Service by Publication1414 OG 46
• 37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication1414 OG 49
• Registration to Practice1414 OG 50
• Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Deposit Account Replenishments1414 OG 52
• Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Patent Maintenance Fee Payments1414 OG 53
• Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check1414 OG 54
• Notices of Suspension1414 OG 55
• Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee1414 OG 57
• Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality1414 OG 76
• Changes to Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs1414 OG 87
• Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program Between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks1414 OG 188
• Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday, February 17, 20151414 OG 189
• Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, March 5, 20151414 OG 190
• Errata1414 OG 191
• Certificates of Correction1414 OG 196
• AIA Trial Proceedings Filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board1414 OG 198
• Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board1414 OG 199

• Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
• Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
• Patent Technology Centers


COPIES OF PATENTS are furnished by the Patent and Trademark Office at $3.00 each; PLANT PATENTS in color, $15.00 each; copies of TRADEMARKS at $3.00 each. Address orders to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA., 22313-1450, or click here for online ordering.

Printing by U.S.P.T.O. in electronic form is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 10(a)3

Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 2 

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information For information concerning PCT member countries, see the notice appearing in the Official Gazette at 1393 O.G. 61, on August 13, 2013. For information on subject matter under Rule 39 that a particular International Searching Authority will not search, see Annex D of the PCT Applicants' Guide. European Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority The European Patent Office (EPO) may act as the International Searching Authority (ISA) or the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of America. The EPO, effective January 1, 2015, no longer has any limitations concerning its competency to act as an ISA. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1412 O.G. 61 on March 10, 2015. Previously, the EPO would not act as an ISA and would not carry out an international search for any application which contained one or more claims relating to the field of business methods. As of January 1, 2015, U.S. applicants filing their international applications with the USPTO or the IB as receiving Office may select the EPO to act as the ISA without restrictions. In applications containing claims relating to business methods where the subject matter of the application also contains technical features, the EPO will perform a search for those parts of the application which are more than mere business methods. However, the EPO will issue a declaration under PCT Rule 17(2)(a) that no ISR will be established whenever an application relates only to a business method as such. The EPO will act as an IPEA only if it also acted as the ISA. The search fee of the European Patent Office was changed, effective April 1, 2015, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1412 O.G. 229, on March 31, 2015. Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority The Korean Intellectual Property Office may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G. 1261 on January 17, 2006. The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was changed, effective January 1, 2015, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1409 O.G. 243, on December 30, 2014. Australian Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1337 O.G. 265, on December 23, 2008. However, the use of IP Australia is restricted. IP Australia will not act as an ISA if it has received more than 250 international applications from the USPTO during a fiscal quarter, as indicated in the Official Gazette at 1409 O.G. 302 on December 30, 2014. IP Australia will act as an IPEA only if it also acted as the ISA. The search fee of IP Australia was changed, effective April 1, 2015, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1412 O.G. 229, on March 31, 2015.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 3 

 The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of Russia as Searching and Examining Authority The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of Russia (Rospatent) may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 162, on May 8, 2012. The search fee of Rospatent was changed, effective April 1, 2015, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1412 O.G. 229 on March 31, 2015. Israel Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority The Israel Patent Office (ILPO) may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1408 O.G. 52, on November 4, 2014. However, the use of the ILPO is restricted. The ILPO will not act as an ISA for applications with one or more claims relating to a business method as defined by certain International Patent Classification classes nor will the ILPO act as an ISA where it has received more than 75 international applications from the USPTO during a fiscal quarter, as indicated in the Official Gazette at 1408 O.G. 52 on November 4, 2014. For the definition of what the ILPO considers to be precluded subject matter in the field of business methods, see Annex B of the Agreement between the Israel Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/ilpo_isa-ipea.pdf). The ILPO will act as an IPEA only if it also acted as the ISA. The search fee of ILPO was changed, effective March 1, 2015, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1412 O.G. 60 on March 10, 2015. Fees The transmittal fee for the USPTO was changed to include a basic portion and a non-electronic filing fee portion, effective November 15, 2011, and was announced in the Federal Register on November 15, 2011. Search fees for the USPTO were changed, effective January 12, 2009, and were announced in the Federal Register on November 12, 2008. The fee for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority was established, effective November 9, 2007, and was announced in the Federal Register on September 10, 2007. International filing fees were changed, effective January 1, 2015, and were announced in the Official Gazette at 1409 O.G. 243, on December 30, 2014. The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of April 1, 2015, is as follows: International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees: Transmittal fee Basic Portion - Fee $240.00 - Small Entity Fee $120.00 - Micro Entity Fee $60.00 Non-electronic filing fee portion for International
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 4 

 applications (other than plant applications) filed on or after 15 November 2011 other than by the Office electronic filing system - Fee $400.00 - Small Entity Fee $200.00 - Micro Entity Fee $200.00 Search fee U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as International Searching Authority (ISA) - Search fee - Fee $2,080.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,040.00 - Micro Entity Fee $520.00 - Supplemental search fee, per additional invention (payable only upon invitation) - Fee $2,080.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,040.00 - Micro Entity Fee $520.00 European Patent Office as ISA - Fee $2,125.00 - Small Entity Fee $2,125.00 - Micro Entity Fee $2,125.00 Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA - Fee $1,219.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,219.00 - Micro Entity Fee $1,219.00 IP Australia as ISA - Fee $1,789.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,789.00 - Micro Entity Fee $1,789.00 Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of Russia (Rospatent) as ISA - Fee $426.00 - Small Entity Fee $426.00 - Micro Entity Fee $426.00 Israel Patent Office - Fee $909.00 - Small Entity Fee $909.00 - Micro Entity Fee $909.00 International Fees International filing fee - Fee $1,384.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,384.00 - Micro Entity Fee $1,384.00 International filing fee-filed in paper with PCT EASY zip file or electronically without PCT EASY zip file - Fee $1,280.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,280.00 - Micro Entity Fee $1,280.00 International filing fee-filed electronically with PCT EASY zip files - Fee $1,176.00 - Small Entity Fee $1,176.00 - Micro Entity Fee $1.176.00 Supplemental fee for each page over 30 - Fee $16.00 - Small Entity Fee $16.00 - Micro Entity Fee $16.00 Restoration of Priority
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 5 

 Filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority under § 1.452 - Fee $1,700.00 - Small Entity Fee $850.00 - Micro Entity Fee $850.00 International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination Handling fee - Fee $208.00 - Small Entity Fee $208.00 - Micro Entity Fee $208.00 Handling fee-90% reduction, if Applicants meet criteria specified at http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf - Fee $20.80 - Small Entity Fee $20.80 - Micro Entity Fee $20.80 Preliminary examination fee USPTO as International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) - USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I - Fee $600.00 - Small Entity Fee $300.00 - Micro Entity Fee $150.00 - USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I - Fee $760.00 - Small Entity Fee $380.00 - Micro Entity Fee $190.00 - Additional preliminary examination fee, per additional invention (payable only upon invitation) - Fee $600.00 - Small Entity Fee $300.00 - Micro Entity Fee $150.00 U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's Web site (www.uspto.gov). March 10, 2015 MARK POWELL Deputy Commissioner for International Patent Cooperation United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 6 

Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
 Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e) for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant. Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on April 24, 2012 for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges: Utility Patents 8,161,569 through 8,166,568 Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents. Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on April 22, 2008 for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges: Utility Patents 7,360,254 through 7,363,658 Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents. Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on April 20, 2004 for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid. The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges: Utility Patents 6,721,959 through 6,725,463 Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents. No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents. Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the "Maintenance Fees" link for more information. Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000". Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450". Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR 1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity amount. The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees, USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 7 

Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
 Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee 35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first maintenance fee which was not paid. According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge. PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON March 18, 2015 DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES Patent Application Issue Number Number Date 6,532,598 10/072,279 03/18/03 6,532,605 10/059,353 03/18/03 6,532,606 10/047,791 03/18/03 6,532,613 09/877,461 03/18/03 6,532,625 09/620,010 03/18/03 6,532,626 09/778,480 03/18/03 6,532,627 09/819,493 03/18/03 6,532,637 09/644,718 03/18/03 6,532,641 09/825,605 03/18/03 6,532,642 09/677,055 03/18/03 6,532,646 09/402,816 03/18/03 6,532,648 10/095,010 03/18/03 6,532,652 09/754,269 03/18/03 6,532,657 09/957,844 03/18/03 6,532,658 09/731,984 03/18/03 6,532,660 09/662,029 03/18/03 6,532,673 09/966,107 03/18/03 6,532,678 10/056,351 03/18/03 6,532,681 09/131,050 03/18/03 6,532,682 09/987,443 03/18/03 6,532,692 09/804,453 03/18/03 6,532,697 10/037,057 03/18/03 6,532,704 09/866,136 03/18/03 6,532,705 09/321,025 03/18/03 6,532,707 09/616,935 03/18/03 6,532,721 09/723,933 03/18/03 6,532,723 09/877,965 03/18/03 6,532,725 09/528,820 03/18/03 6,532,744 09/873,188 03/18/03 6,532,745 10/119,915 03/18/03 6,532,746 10/057,246 03/18/03 6,532,755 10/152,575 03/18/03 6,532,758 10/225,010 03/18/03 6,532,759 09/934,976 03/18/03 6,532,765 08/879,392 03/18/03 6,532,768 09/446,299 03/18/03 6,532,772 09/389,679 03/18/03 6,532,773 09/609,580 03/18/03 6,532,781 09/673,399 03/18/03 6,532,786 09/838,637 03/18/03 6,532,787 10/087,519 03/18/03 6,532,788 09/751,663 03/18/03 6,532,803 09/384,920 03/18/03 6,532,806 09/695,508 03/18/03 6,532,812 09/840,702 03/18/03 6,532,817 09/300,009 03/18/03 6,532,820 09/890,616 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 8 

 6,532,823 09/272,648 03/18/03 6,532,824 09/786,944 03/18/03 6,532,832 09/955,109 03/18/03 6,532,850 09/328,941 03/18/03 6,532,852 08/815,435 03/18/03 6,532,857 09/569,429 03/18/03 6,532,862 09/899,734 03/18/03 6,532,869 09/726,520 03/18/03 6,532,873 09/858,208 03/18/03 6,532,876 09/413,828 03/18/03 6,532,882 09/926,127 03/18/03 6,532,893 09/744,098 03/18/03 6,532,899 10/059,977 03/18/03 6,532,900 10/094,736 03/18/03 6,532,903 09/920,343 03/18/03 6,532,904 10/116,514 03/18/03 6,532,911 09/907,596 03/18/03 6,532,914 09/918,980 03/18/03 6,532,918 09/530,272 03/18/03 6,532,919 09/732,839 03/18/03 6,532,921 09/985,806 03/18/03 6,532,926 09/633,138 03/18/03 6,532,930 09/953,447 03/18/03 6,532,932 09/723,862 03/18/03 6,532,935 09/867,248 03/18/03 6,532,947 09/704,712 03/18/03 6,532,948 09/932,037 03/18/03 6,532,955 09/570,789 03/18/03 6,532,962 09/634,844 03/18/03 6,532,971 10/123,238 03/18/03 6,532,974 10/117,768 03/18/03 6,532,975 09/635,465 03/18/03 6,532,983 09/901,450 03/18/03 6,532,984 09/996,743 03/18/03 6,532,987 09/502,004 03/18/03 6,532,988 09/890,657 03/18/03 6,532,990 09/801,406 03/18/03 6,532,991 09/801,408 03/18/03 6,532,998 09/954,505 03/18/03 6,533,000 09/832,196 03/18/03 6,533,008 09/624,735 03/18/03 6,533,011 09/858,539 03/18/03 6,533,013 09/588,146 03/18/03 6,533,015 09/823,806 03/18/03 6,533,017 09/605,377 03/18/03 6,533,019 09/693,225 03/18/03 6,533,025 09/587,594 03/18/03 6,533,029 09/945,909 03/18/03 6,533,036 09/582,334 03/18/03 6,533,039 09/784,686 03/18/03 6,533,041 09/150,422 03/18/03 6,533,043 09/876,962 03/18/03 6,533,045 09/847,269 03/18/03 6,533,048 09/791,235 03/18/03 6,533,050 09/829,006 03/18/03 6,533,054 09/647,294 03/18/03 6,533,057 09/708,329 03/18/03 6,533,066 09/687,174 03/18/03 6,533,072 09/756,671 03/18/03 6,533,078 09/942,807 03/18/03 6,533,086 08/857,118 03/18/03 6,533,094 09/813,897 03/18/03 6,533,095 10/082,763 03/18/03 6,533,099 09/808,566 03/18/03 6,533,104 09/806,965 03/18/03 6,533,105 09/701,978 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 9 

 6,533,114 09/702,266 03/18/03 6,533,115 09/947,561 03/18/03 6,533,121 09/299,452 03/18/03 6,533,124 09/514,841 03/18/03 6,533,127 09/641,323 03/18/03 6,533,131 09/726,312 03/18/03 6,533,132 09/952,068 03/18/03 6,533,136 09/739,949 03/18/03 6,533,137 09/937,575 03/18/03 6,533,139 09/957,327 03/18/03 6,533,144 09/778,167 03/18/03 6,533,150 09/709,836 03/18/03 6,533,152 09/717,501 03/18/03 6,533,155 09/622,899 03/18/03 6,533,159 09/639,486 03/18/03 6,533,165 09/749,958 03/18/03 6,533,169 09/846,716 03/18/03 6,533,171 09/416,656 03/18/03 6,533,172 09/685,630 03/18/03 6,533,175 09/321,528 03/18/03 6,533,177 09/297,776 03/18/03 6,533,188 09/750,324 03/18/03 6,533,193 09/819,403 03/18/03 6,533,198 09/714,057 03/18/03 6,533,201 09/886,056 03/18/03 6,533,206 09/840,599 03/18/03 6,533,210 09/665,645 03/18/03 6,533,220 10/127,206 03/18/03 6,533,222 10/046,388 03/18/03 6,533,238 09/902,167 03/18/03 6,533,239 09/427,607 03/18/03 6,533,240 09/709,120 03/18/03 6,533,247 09/710,507 03/18/03 6,533,257 09/888,632 03/18/03 6,533,262 09/239,915 03/18/03 6,533,263 09/778,928 03/18/03 6,533,265 09/976,204 03/18/03 6,533,266 09/700,850 03/18/03 6,533,268 09/916,993 03/18/03 6,533,270 09/850,030 03/18/03 6,533,278 09/497,686 03/18/03 6,533,279 09/860,055 03/18/03 6,533,282 10/155,611 03/18/03 6,533,284 09/777,642 03/18/03 6,533,286 08/801,837 03/18/03 6,533,288 09/595,733 03/18/03 6,533,295 09/729,954 03/18/03 6,533,298 09/803,871 03/18/03 6,533,299 09/725,421 03/18/03 6,533,307 09/719,217 03/18/03 6,533,311 09/893,594 03/18/03 6,533,316 09/767,020 03/18/03 6,533,334 09/701,141 03/18/03 6,533,335 09/736,686 03/18/03 6,533,339 09/685,995 03/18/03 6,533,340 10/035,943 03/18/03 6,533,350 09/891,483 03/18/03 6,533,355 09/819,540 03/18/03 6,533,362 09/433,408 03/18/03 6,533,377 09/773,408 03/18/03 6,533,381 09/429,946 03/18/03 6,533,384 09/984,535 03/18/03 6,533,388 09/803,074 03/18/03 6,533,389 09/801,670 03/18/03 6,533,390 09/505,150 03/18/03 6,533,392 09/316,145 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 10 

 6,533,393 09/629,547 03/18/03 6,533,397 09/972,941 03/18/03 6,533,398 09/506,383 03/18/03 6,533,400 09/652,664 03/18/03 6,533,402 09/815,289 03/18/03 6,533,404 08/705,507 03/18/03 6,533,406 09/788,873 03/18/03 6,533,407 09/879,899 03/18/03 6,533,409 09/219,895 03/18/03 6,533,415 09/810,254 03/18/03 6,533,420 09/488,884 03/18/03 6,533,423 09/590,135 03/18/03 6,533,429 10/041,608 03/18/03 6,533,434 09/875,804 03/18/03 6,533,439 09/078,089 03/18/03 6,533,441 09/907,079 03/18/03 6,533,445 10/094,912 03/18/03 6,533,446 09/783,952 03/18/03 6,533,448 09/953,284 03/18/03 6,533,456 09/966,647 03/18/03 6,533,459 09/774,348 03/18/03 6,533,464 09/685,886 03/18/03 6,533,466 09/656,918 03/18/03 6,533,471 10/032,911 03/18/03 6,533,473 09/692,168 03/18/03 6,533,475 09/861,573 03/18/03 6,533,476 10/124,959 03/18/03 6,533,478 09/604,095 03/18/03 6,533,480 09/879,507 03/18/03 6,533,491 09/582,654 03/18/03 6,533,495 09/713,362 03/18/03 6,533,499 09/805,519 03/18/03 6,533,506 09/585,523 03/18/03 6,533,527 09/638,777 03/18/03 6,533,533 09/418,137 03/18/03 6,533,534 09/379,742 03/18/03 6,533,535 09/827,727 03/18/03 6,533,548 09/659,696 03/18/03 6,533,559 09/854,217 03/18/03 6,533,560 09/753,156 03/18/03 6,533,566 09/812,878 03/18/03 6,533,571 09/855,089 03/18/03 6,533,575 10/060,177 03/18/03 6,533,590 10/023,615 03/18/03 6,533,592 10/040,533 03/18/03 6,533,593 09/914,226 03/18/03 6,533,597 10/091,679 03/18/03 6,533,599 10/020,792 03/18/03 6,533,601 09/780,296 03/18/03 6,533,606 10/078,513 03/18/03 6,533,609 09/910,188 03/18/03 6,533,615 10/039,966 03/18/03 6,533,618 09/825,471 03/18/03 6,533,619 09/803,069 03/18/03 6,533,624 09/157,076 03/18/03 6,533,633 09/902,710 03/18/03 6,533,636 09/925,318 03/18/03 6,533,638 09/656,391 03/18/03 6,533,643 09/683,575 03/18/03 6,533,645 09/484,867 03/18/03 6,533,647 09/338,030 03/18/03 6,533,649 09/771,603 03/18/03 6,533,657 09/853,220 03/18/03 6,533,660 09/840,643 03/18/03 6,533,674 09/379,592 03/18/03 6,533,680 09/849,459 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 11 

 6,533,699 09/883,958 03/18/03 6,533,701 09/988,260 03/18/03 6,533,707 09/861,512 03/18/03 6,533,717 09/851,651 03/18/03 6,533,725 09/692,190 03/18/03 6,533,732 09/773,123 03/18/03 6,533,741 09/478,417 03/18/03 6,533,745 09/558,262 03/18/03 6,533,752 09/477,640 03/18/03 6,533,761 09/867,768 03/18/03 6,533,762 09/915,107 03/18/03 6,533,763 09/455,078 03/18/03 6,533,765 09/526,271 03/18/03 6,533,773 09/174,377 03/18/03 6,533,775 09/566,209 03/18/03 6,533,779 09/760,876 03/18/03 6,533,805 08/627,667 03/18/03 6,533,812 10/078,939 03/18/03 6,533,820 09/335,900 03/18/03 6,533,832 09/105,060 03/18/03 6,533,836 09/897,396 03/18/03 6,533,837 09/677,589 03/18/03 6,533,840 10/008,578 03/18/03 6,533,852 09/770,507 03/18/03 6,533,853 09/661,393 03/18/03 6,533,856 09/941,470 03/18/03 6,533,857 10/069,666 03/18/03 6,533,858 09/685,502 03/18/03 6,533,862 09/898,045 03/18/03 6,533,875 09/693,077 03/18/03 6,533,880 09/498,027 03/18/03 6,533,883 09/626,081 03/18/03 6,533,889 09/380,627 03/18/03 6,533,890 09/722,272 03/18/03 6,533,891 09/869,541 03/18/03 6,533,892 09/921,403 03/18/03 6,533,893 10/102,401 03/18/03 6,533,894 10/043,544 03/18/03 6,533,898 10/017,361 03/18/03 6,533,901 09/880,874 03/18/03 6,533,910 09/750,251 03/18/03 6,533,913 09/452,854 03/18/03 6,533,916 09/523,723 03/18/03 6,533,919 09/686,444 03/18/03 6,533,920 09/757,129 03/18/03 6,533,921 09/737,771 03/18/03 6,533,922 09/803,577 03/18/03 6,533,923 09/745,486 03/18/03 6,533,928 10/027,956 03/18/03 6,533,930 09/744,844 03/18/03 6,533,936 08/951,502 03/18/03 6,533,938 09/579,794 03/18/03 6,533,945 09/813,616 03/18/03 6,533,951 09/626,874 03/18/03 6,533,953 09/797,355 03/18/03 6,533,959 10/017,622 03/18/03 6,533,963 09/250,031 03/18/03 6,533,973 09/638,934 03/18/03 6,533,977 08/987,975 03/18/03 6,533,980 09/260,799 03/18/03 6,533,981 09/341,908 03/18/03 6,533,994 09/734,425 03/18/03 6,533,996 09/803,518 03/18/03 6,533,997 09/787,219 03/18/03 6,534,005 09/812,180 03/18/03 6,534,007 08/904,432 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 12 

 6,534,011 09/445,819 03/18/03 6,534,012 09/631,440 03/18/03 6,534,018 09/439,619 03/18/03 6,534,020 08/890,471 03/18/03 6,534,036 09/431,887 03/18/03 6,534,037 09/644,186 03/18/03 6,534,039 09/834,049 03/18/03 6,534,049 09/976,557 03/18/03 6,534,050 09/889,782 03/18/03 6,534,053 09/986,854 03/18/03 6,534,054 09/986,855 03/18/03 6,534,057 08/940,228 03/18/03 6,534,059 09/894,287 03/18/03 6,534,062 09/820,484 03/18/03 6,534,083 09/180,171 03/18/03 6,534,090 09/891,848 03/18/03 6,534,096 10/133,117 03/18/03 6,534,102 09/799,198 03/18/03 6,534,107 09/570,243 03/18/03 6,534,108 09/788,640 03/18/03 6,534,114 09/796,153 03/18/03 6,534,127 09/938,674 03/18/03 6,534,131 09/762,975 03/18/03 6,534,135 09/646,191 03/18/03 6,534,136 09/934,301 03/18/03 6,534,141 09/420,721 03/18/03 6,534,143 09/743,503 03/18/03 6,534,152 08/082,120 03/18/03 6,534,158 09/788,012 03/18/03 6,534,162 09/606,201 03/18/03 6,534,163 09/744,590 03/18/03 6,534,166 09/145,949 03/18/03 6,534,168 09/938,400 03/18/03 6,534,187 09/843,628 03/18/03 6,534,197 09/818,054 03/18/03 6,534,201 09/942,778 03/18/03 6,534,208 09/697,684 03/18/03 6,534,213 09/647,719 03/18/03 6,534,216 09/490,535 03/18/03 6,534,217 09/760,677 03/18/03 6,534,231 09/400,327 03/18/03 6,534,237 09/563,349 03/18/03 6,534,247 09/755,837 03/18/03 6,534,250 09/847,339 03/18/03 6,534,251 10/092,995 03/18/03 6,534,256 09/820,229 03/18/03 6,534,258 09/730,725 03/18/03 6,534,266 09/556,134 03/18/03 6,534,275 09/483,665 03/18/03 6,534,280 09/539,080 03/18/03 6,534,290 09/590,864 03/18/03 6,534,295 09/954,684 03/18/03 6,534,302 09/773,426 03/18/03 6,534,303 09/804,989 03/18/03 6,534,304 09/508,840 03/18/03 6,534,315 09/415,216 03/18/03 6,534,324 09/573,717 03/18/03 6,534,326 10/099,186 03/18/03 6,534,329 09/243,173 03/18/03 6,534,330 09/871,326 03/18/03 6,534,334 09/883,537 03/18/03 6,534,339 09/989,576 03/18/03 6,534,341 09/920,970 03/18/03 6,534,352 09/885,083 03/18/03 6,534,357 09/711,206 03/18/03 6,534,358 09/838,186 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 13 

 6,534,368 09/881,586 03/18/03 6,534,370 09/776,753 03/18/03 6,534,379 10/051,698 03/18/03 6,534,390 10/050,444 03/18/03 6,534,402 10/025,430 03/18/03 6,534,410 09/802,913 03/18/03 6,534,414 09/594,328 03/18/03 6,534,431 08/881,254 03/18/03 6,534,440 09/725,640 03/18/03 6,534,445 09/887,372 03/18/03 6,534,446 09/166,434 03/18/03 6,534,449 09/579,072 03/18/03 6,534,460 09/640,561 03/18/03 6,534,471 09/600,341 03/18/03 6,534,475 09/697,568 03/18/03 6,534,476 09/923,922 03/18/03 6,534,479 08/758,757 03/18/03 6,534,485 09/482,271 03/18/03 6,534,489 09/856,789 03/18/03 6,534,491 09/734,146 03/18/03 6,534,493 09/694,785 03/18/03 6,534,502 10/047,836 03/18/03 6,534,522 09/779,024 03/18/03 6,534,535 09/636,804 03/18/03 6,534,540 09/912,703 03/18/03 6,534,541 09/686,025 03/18/03 6,534,542 09/794,874 03/18/03 6,534,545 09/579,441 03/18/03 6,534,547 09/659,899 03/18/03 6,534,549 09/516,253 03/18/03 6,534,561 09/702,000 03/18/03 6,534,562 09/812,623 03/18/03 6,534,575 09/908,722 03/18/03 6,534,581 09/620,397 03/18/03 6,534,584 09/756,538 03/18/03 6,534,586 09/949,121 03/18/03 6,534,595 09/742,216 03/18/03 6,534,596 09/851,894 03/18/03 6,534,612 09/440,431 03/18/03 6,534,627 09/255,503 03/18/03 6,534,630 09/348,815 03/18/03 6,534,635 09/540,530 03/18/03 6,534,639 09/612,531 03/18/03 6,534,641 08/825,486 03/18/03 6,534,656 09/871,429 03/18/03 6,534,657 09/781,083 03/18/03 6,534,660 10/116,052 03/18/03 6,534,661 09/996,920 03/18/03 6,534,671 09/880,435 03/18/03 6,534,674 09/831,791 03/18/03 6,534,676 09/774,994 03/18/03 6,534,679 09/927,116 03/18/03 6,534,682 09/890,467 03/18/03 6,534,690 09/844,236 03/18/03 6,534,694 09/984,506 03/18/03 6,534,696 09/537,186 03/18/03 6,534,700 10/132,268 03/18/03 6,534,701 10/022,886 03/18/03 6,534,703 09/902,476 03/18/03 6,534,710 09/764,620 03/18/03 6,534,711 09/622,548 03/18/03 6,534,722 10/132,169 03/18/03 6,534,726 09/696,097 03/18/03 6,534,735 09/912,828 03/18/03 6,534,749 09/968,618 03/18/03 6,534,757 09/236,352 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 14 

 6,534,761 09/758,276 03/18/03 6,534,766 09/816,468 03/18/03 6,534,775 09/654,380 03/18/03 6,534,777 09/793,078 03/18/03 6,534,779 09/503,507 03/18/03 6,534,780 09/624,576 03/18/03 6,534,798 09/656,323 03/18/03 6,534,813 09/889,588 03/18/03 6,534,814 09/497,690 03/18/03 6,534,817 09/683,581 03/18/03 6,534,819 09/943,210 03/18/03 6,534,832 09/983,882 03/18/03 6,534,838 09/947,389 03/18/03 6,534,842 09/255,701 03/18/03 6,534,871 09/855,391 03/18/03 6,534,884 09/942,295 03/18/03 6,534,885 09/785,393 03/18/03 6,534,891 10/045,943 03/18/03 6,534,893 09/829,927 03/18/03 6,534,900 09/789,342 03/18/03 6,534,902 10/085,043 03/18/03 6,534,903 09/683,862 03/18/03 6,534,904 09/516,940 03/18/03 6,534,910 09/656,128 03/18/03 6,534,914 09/773,551 03/18/03 6,534,924 09/328,804 03/18/03 6,534,926 09/644,765 03/18/03 6,534,927 09/984,352 03/18/03 6,534,928 10/040,374 03/18/03 6,534,934 09/929,340 03/18/03 6,534,964 09/668,782 03/18/03 6,534,967 09/677,395 03/18/03 6,534,968 09/928,071 03/18/03 6,534,971 09/937,892 03/18/03 6,534,977 09/421,399 03/18/03 6,534,981 09/829,611 03/18/03 6,534,982 09/470,166 03/18/03 6,534,991 10/063,785 03/18/03 6,534,996 09/816,506 03/18/03 6,534,997 09/685,826 03/18/03 6,535,003 10/078,603 03/18/03 6,535,011 09/621,586 03/18/03 6,535,014 09/756,480 03/18/03 6,535,022 10/218,291 03/18/03 6,535,025 09/775,475 03/18/03 6,535,028 09/986,810 03/18/03 6,535,037 09/776,050 03/18/03 6,535,040 09/929,522 03/18/03 6,535,051 09/861,954 03/18/03 6,535,058 09/831,595 03/18/03 6,535,064 10/152,451 03/18/03 6,535,069 10/084,364 03/18/03 6,535,072 09/907,356 03/18/03 6,535,073 09/633,963 03/18/03 6,535,085 09/925,309 03/18/03 6,535,088 09/548,691 03/18/03 6,535,100 09/751,035 03/18/03 6,535,103 08/810,055 03/18/03 6,535,112 09/743,584 03/18/03 6,535,113 09/926,179 03/18/03 6,535,118 10/040,729 03/18/03 6,535,126 09/738,306 03/18/03 6,535,134 09/298,992 03/18/03 6,535,136 09/243,772 03/18/03 6,535,137 09/961,963 03/18/03 6,535,140 08/765,502 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 15 

 6,535,143 09/424,262 03/18/03 6,535,150 09/389,542 03/18/03 6,535,181 09/799,565 03/18/03 6,535,184 09/710,433 03/18/03 6,535,195 09/655,388 03/18/03 6,535,196 09/846,851 03/18/03 6,535,203 09/794,944 03/18/03 6,535,206 09/507,078 03/18/03 6,535,207 09/289,983 03/18/03 6,535,214 09/534,128 03/18/03 6,535,218 09/164,858 03/18/03 6,535,226 09/283,413 03/18/03 6,535,237 09/619,056 03/18/03 6,535,240 09/906,459 03/18/03 6,535,254 09/056,056 03/18/03 6,535,256 09/272,813 03/18/03 6,535,258 09/597,520 03/18/03 6,535,260 09/286,917 03/18/03 6,535,271 09/534,237 03/18/03 6,535,276 09/904,955 03/18/03 6,535,292 09/208,976 03/18/03 6,535,298 09/735,090 03/18/03 6,535,302 09/144,449 03/18/03 6,535,305 09/481,402 03/18/03 6,535,317 09/817,125 03/18/03 6,535,324 09/677,378 03/18/03 6,535,325 09/839,850 03/18/03 6,535,326 09/986,558 03/18/03 6,535,327 09/567,908 03/18/03 6,535,329 09/466,923 03/18/03 6,535,335 09/974,826 03/18/03 6,535,345 09/546,473 03/18/03 6,535,350 09/114,954 03/18/03 6,535,353 09/188,400 03/18/03 6,535,354 09/659,192 03/18/03 6,535,355 09/207,535 03/18/03 6,535,359 09/579,764 03/18/03 6,535,360 09/580,459 03/18/03 6,535,361 09/795,954 03/18/03 6,535,363 09/482,784 03/18/03 6,535,365 09/505,885 03/18/03 6,535,366 09/708,070 03/18/03 6,535,369 09/596,172 03/18/03 6,535,373 10/170,559 03/18/03 6,535,374 09/843,053 03/18/03 6,535,379 09/586,650 03/18/03 6,535,380 09/636,218 03/18/03 6,535,381 09/815,511 03/18/03 6,535,382 09/833,722 03/18/03 6,535,392 09/925,373 03/18/03 6,535,393 09/205,796 03/18/03 6,535,394 09/401,548 03/18/03 6,535,417 09/837,233 03/18/03 6,535,427 09/707,983 03/18/03 6,535,433 10/206,879 03/18/03 6,535,438 09/955,020 03/18/03 6,535,440 09/906,896 03/18/03 6,535,441 09/912,593 03/18/03 6,535,445 09/753,695 03/18/03 6,535,447 10/000,178 03/18/03 6,535,456 10/093,935 03/18/03 6,535,458 09/129,656 03/18/03 6,535,464 09/100,442 03/18/03 6,535,467 08/735,572 03/18/03 6,535,472 09/631,646 03/18/03 6,535,473 09/546,100 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 16 

 6,535,474 09/549,157 03/18/03 6,535,477 09/598,291 03/18/03 6,535,486 09/611,763 03/18/03 6,535,487 09/098,347 03/18/03 6,535,515 09/314,710 03/18/03 6,535,519 09/143,086 03/18/03 6,535,521 09/343,147 03/18/03 6,535,528 09/268,383 03/18/03 6,535,533 09/798,434 03/18/03 6,535,535 09/500,247 03/18/03 6,535,544 09/387,603 03/18/03 6,535,554 09/193,256 03/18/03 6,535,573 09/915,447 03/18/03 6,535,582 09/676,470 03/18/03 6,535,583 09/140,450 03/18/03 6,535,589 09/395,020 03/18/03 6,535,598 09/625,260 03/18/03 6,535,604 09/148,149 03/18/03 6,535,609 08/868,212 03/18/03 6,535,617 09/553,001 03/18/03 6,535,618 09/618,779 03/18/03 6,535,619 09/229,329 03/18/03 6,535,620 09/803,774 03/18/03 6,535,624 09/387,728 03/18/03 6,535,625 09/405,236 03/18/03 6,535,626 09/483,205 03/18/03 6,535,630 09/375,464 03/18/03 6,535,641 09/431,716 03/18/03 6,535,649 09/309,550 03/18/03 6,535,651 08/829,471 03/18/03 6,535,652 09/239,785 03/18/03 6,535,658 09/639,007 03/18/03 6,535,662 09/802,767 03/18/03 6,535,665 09/577,213 03/18/03 6,535,667 10/039,602 03/18/03 6,535,669 09/849,354 03/18/03 6,535,674 09/737,732 03/18/03 6,535,675 09/471,688 03/18/03 6,535,679 09/007,798 03/18/03 6,535,684 09/600,737 03/18/03 6,535,690 09/901,627 03/18/03 6,535,691 09/624,889 03/18/03 6,535,694 09/781,506 03/18/03 6,535,705 09/789,511 03/18/03 6,535,711 10/021,413 03/18/03 6,535,719 09/496,932 03/18/03 6,535,725 09/823,313 03/18/03 6,535,740 09/436,246 03/18/03 6,535,744 09/473,362 03/18/03 6,535,757 09/887,114 03/18/03 6,535,759 09/692,418 03/18/03 6,535,768 09/648,345 03/18/03 6,535,769 09/523,357 03/18/03 6,535,774 09/373,218 03/18/03 6,535,779 09/036,217 03/18/03 6,535,780 09/471,675 03/18/03 6,535,782 09/523,897 03/18/03 6,535,802 10/056,474 03/18/03 6,535,804 10/174,827 03/18/03 6,535,805 09/927,610 03/18/03 6,535,818 09/581,417 03/18/03 6,535,820 09/383,364 03/18/03 6,535,828 09/695,911 03/18/03 6,535,831 09/616,867 03/18/03 6,535,836 09/677,076 03/18/03 6,535,837 09/520,287 03/18/03
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 17 

 6,535,841 09/383,169 03/18/03 6,535,859 09/454,775 03/18/03 6,535,865 09/353,727 03/18/03 6,535,871 09/624,671 03/18/03 6,535,873 09/558,411 03/18/03 6,535,875 10/095,569 03/18/03 6,535,887 09/412,974 03/18/03 6,535,897 09/543,384 03/18/03 6,535,898 09/490,247 03/18/03 6,535,902 09/822,411 03/18/03 6,535,903 08/593,778 03/18/03 6,535,904 10/013,213 03/18/03 6,535,908 09/441,423 03/18/03 6,535,911 09/369,768 03/18/03 6,535,919 09/339,862 03/18/03 6,535,921 09/954,265 03/18/03 6,535,930 09/800,542 03/18/03 6,535,932 09/383,926 03/18/03 6,535,933 09/347,463 03/18/03 6,535,937 09/503,911 03/18/03 6,535,938 09/436,645 03/18/03 6,535,955 09/628,518 03/18/03 6,535,970 09/477,311 03/18/03 6,535,980 09/337,719 03/18/03 6,535,985 09/583,168 03/18/03 6,535,995 09/266,419 03/18/03 6,536,002 09/471,798 03/18/03 6,536,008 09/181,077 03/18/03 6,536,010 09/427,298 03/18/03 6,536,016 09/626,037 03/18/03 6,536,019 09/672,382 03/18/03 6,536,020 09/726,991 03/18/03 6,536,027 09/735,837 03/18/03 6,536,033 09/238,430 03/18/03 6,536,034 09/242,282 03/18/03 PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON March 13, 2015 DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES Patent Application Issue Number Number Date 7,188,372 10/814,379 03/13/07 7,188,373 10/380,067 03/13/07 7,188,375 10/872,001 03/13/07 7,188,384 11/282,534 03/13/07 7,188,387 10/400,424 03/13/07 7,188,396 10/689,111 03/13/07 7,188,402 10/676,145 03/13/07 7,188,403 11/036,198 03/13/07 7,188,419 10/778,139 03/13/07 7,188,423 11/328,912 03/13/07 7,188,426 10/820,389 03/13/07 7,188,427 11/052,013 03/13/07 7,188,428 10/505,345 03/13/07 7,188,429 11/044,572 03/13/07 7,188,431 11/114,539 03/13/07 7,188,436 11/125,411 03/13/07 7,188,442 10/896,604 03/13/07 7,188,446 11/157,086 03/13/07 7,188,457 10/754,744 03/13/07 7,188,466 10/775,876 03/13/07 7,188,469 11/022,501 03/13/07 7,188,474 10/949,574 03/13/07 7,188,475 10/742,210 03/13/07 7,188,480 10/771,971 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 18 

 7,188,492 10/612,287 03/13/07 7,188,495 10/959,090 03/13/07 7,188,500 11/142,849 03/13/07 7,188,503 10/977,844 03/13/07 7,188,505 10/728,412 03/13/07 7,188,509 10/886,353 03/13/07 7,188,527 10/884,736 03/13/07 7,188,531 11/230,381 03/13/07 7,188,551 10/530,796 03/13/07 7,188,556 10/962,330 03/13/07 7,188,557 11/254,723 03/13/07 7,188,565 11/143,445 03/13/07 7,188,567 10/130,191 03/13/07 7,188,569 10/934,287 03/13/07 7,188,573 11/085,913 03/13/07 7,188,578 11/092,246 03/13/07 7,188,580 10/895,718 03/13/07 7,188,584 11/162,919 03/13/07 7,188,586 10/625,725 03/13/07 7,188,608 10/014,654 03/13/07 7,188,610 10/946,953 03/13/07 7,188,611 11/188,171 03/13/07 7,188,612 10/552,746 03/13/07 7,188,616 11/122,377 03/13/07 7,188,619 10/739,702 03/13/07 7,188,629 11/164,191 03/13/07 7,188,630 10/431,053 03/13/07 7,188,631 10/250,968 03/13/07 7,188,635 10/746,490 03/13/07 7,188,638 11/055,113 03/13/07 7,188,649 11/065,480 03/13/07 7,188,650 11/023,818 03/13/07 7,188,651 10/879,088 03/13/07 7,188,661 10/904,497 03/13/07 7,188,673 11/374,044 03/13/07 7,188,711 10/924,065 03/13/07 7,188,718 11/061,781 03/13/07 7,188,726 11/076,977 03/13/07 7,188,731 10/648,626 03/13/07 7,188,735 10/766,657 03/13/07 7,188,743 10/610,782 03/13/07 7,188,745 09/872,914 03/13/07 7,188,750 10/655,718 03/13/07 7,188,756 10/835,512 03/13/07 7,188,757 11/083,066 03/13/07 7,188,760 11/030,709 03/13/07 7,188,761 10/760,825 03/13/07 7,188,763 11/043,211 03/13/07 7,188,769 10/815,611 03/13/07 7,188,770 10/893,797 03/13/07 7,188,774 10/313,185 03/13/07 7,188,775 11/327,573 03/13/07 7,188,788 11/358,345 03/13/07 7,188,791 11/031,711 03/13/07 7,188,797 11/274,155 03/13/07 7,188,808 11/307,890 03/13/07 7,188,814 10/870,760 03/13/07 7,188,819 10/159,828 03/13/07 7,188,824 11/203,352 03/13/07 7,188,825 10/934,405 03/13/07 7,188,827 11/060,014 03/13/07 7,188,834 10/476,815 03/13/07 7,188,838 11/034,726 03/13/07 7,188,846 09/876,550 03/13/07 7,188,848 10/897,143 03/13/07 7,188,855 11/118,174 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 19 

 7,188,866 10/788,150 03/13/07 7,188,868 10/487,493 03/13/07 7,188,873 10/651,163 03/13/07 7,188,877 11/381,448 03/13/07 7,188,879 11/062,531 03/13/07 7,188,893 10/962,554 03/13/07 7,188,895 10/765,464 03/13/07 7,188,902 11/103,522 03/13/07 7,188,905 11/083,059 03/13/07 7,188,910 10/526,945 03/13/07 7,188,913 11/073,650 03/13/07 7,188,918 10/634,024 03/13/07 7,188,919 10/607,377 03/13/07 7,188,924 10/868,794 03/13/07 7,188,925 10/769,429 03/13/07 7,188,926 10/456,445 03/13/07 7,188,929 10/917,768 03/13/07 7,188,930 11/203,180 03/13/07 7,188,935 10/959,135 03/13/07 7,188,940 10/356,779 03/13/07 7,188,944 10/918,411 03/13/07 7,188,945 11/017,295 03/13/07 7,188,947 11/385,839 03/13/07 7,188,951 10/798,809 03/13/07 7,188,953 11/120,340 03/13/07 7,188,957 10/969,310 03/13/07 7,188,962 11/101,678 03/13/07 7,188,968 11/335,946 03/13/07 7,188,975 10/940,601 03/13/07 7,188,976 10/821,301 03/13/07 7,188,977 10/896,404 03/13/07 7,188,982 10/725,337 03/13/07 7,188,983 10/751,697 03/13/07 7,188,985 10/892,319 03/13/07 7,188,986 11/324,602 03/13/07 7,188,992 10/630,210 03/13/07 7,188,995 10/548,056 03/13/07 7,189,010 11/540,588 03/13/07 7,189,014 10/902,150 03/13/07 7,189,017 11/245,259 03/13/07 7,189,031 10/733,166 03/13/07 7,189,033 10/717,940 03/13/07 7,189,038 10/562,614 03/13/07 7,189,039 10/502,766 03/13/07 7,189,052 10/906,751 03/13/07 7,189,057 10/681,329 03/13/07 7,189,059 10/976,934 03/13/07 7,189,064 10/846,326 03/13/07 7,189,072 10/890,342 03/13/07 7,189,076 10/774,085 03/13/07 7,189,077 09/710,539 03/13/07 7,189,079 11/140,195 03/13/07 7,189,084 11/052,922 03/13/07 7,189,085 11/306,126 03/13/07 7,189,088 11/322,630 03/13/07 7,189,104 11/283,207 03/13/07 7,189,107 11/234,567 03/13/07 7,189,109 10/956,838 03/13/07 7,189,110 11/032,420 03/13/07 7,189,111 11/132,965 03/13/07 7,189,116 11/335,670 03/13/07 7,189,119 10/988,652 03/13/07 7,189,124 11/344,754 03/13/07 7,189,128 10/998,217 03/13/07 7,189,131 11/132,958 03/13/07 7,189,136 10/909,658 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 20 

 7,189,137 11/129,491 03/13/07 7,189,138 11/244,701 03/13/07 7,189,140 11/270,125 03/13/07 7,189,142 11/494,895 03/13/07 7,189,153 11/195,421 03/13/07 7,189,158 10/952,098 03/13/07 7,189,169 11/313,137 03/13/07 7,189,172 10/707,430 03/13/07 7,189,181 10/520,749 03/13/07 7,189,183 10/502,310 03/13/07 7,189,184 11/050,718 03/13/07 7,189,187 10/849,058 03/13/07 7,189,190 09/805,067 03/13/07 7,189,195 11/158,087 03/13/07 7,189,198 10/613,921 03/13/07 7,189,202 10/693,577 03/13/07 7,189,203 10/715,150 03/13/07 7,189,205 10/445,244 03/13/07 7,189,207 10/444,301 03/13/07 7,189,208 09/548,102 03/13/07 7,189,222 09/872,698 03/13/07 7,189,226 10/900,939 03/13/07 7,189,241 10/985,297 03/13/07 7,189,251 10/446,768 03/13/07 7,189,256 10/143,434 03/13/07 7,189,257 10/843,612 03/13/07 7,189,266 10/480,168 03/13/07 7,189,267 10/671,499 03/13/07 7,189,273 10/423,576 03/13/07 7,189,277 10/922,463 03/13/07 7,189,279 10/275,978 03/13/07 7,189,281 10/911,763 03/13/07 7,189,283 10/564,958 03/13/07 7,189,285 10/221,924 03/13/07 7,189,287 10/879,825 03/13/07 7,189,292 10/697,014 03/13/07 7,189,297 11/003,976 03/13/07 7,189,305 10/230,838 03/13/07 7,189,313 10/143,212 03/13/07 7,189,316 10/070,878 03/13/07 7,189,321 10/682,335 03/13/07 7,189,326 10/484,319 03/13/07 7,189,328 10/877,745 03/13/07 7,189,333 11/036,435 03/13/07 7,189,334 11/165,062 03/13/07 7,189,358 09/923,582 03/13/07 7,189,363 10/443,736 03/13/07 7,189,364 10/119,901 03/13/07 7,189,366 09/864,373 03/13/07 7,189,369 10/658,412 03/13/07 7,189,372 10/204,447 03/13/07 7,189,373 10/367,755 03/13/07 7,189,380 10/647,104 03/13/07 7,189,382 10/669,297 03/13/07 7,189,383 10/523,184 03/13/07 7,189,388 10/195,432 03/13/07 7,189,389 10/777,081 03/13/07 7,189,391 10/105,815 03/13/07 7,189,392 09/687,281 03/13/07 7,189,401 09/647,911 03/13/07 7,189,408 10/767,189 03/13/07 7,189,411 10/252,940 03/13/07 7,189,412 10/469,305 03/13/07 7,189,414 10/630,917 03/13/07 7,189,418 10/365,050 03/13/07 7,189,421 11/233,362 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 21 

 7,189,425 10/781,644 03/13/07 7,189,426 10/522,318 03/13/07 7,189,427 10/774,583 03/13/07 7,189,434 11/328,178 03/13/07 7,189,435 10/098,222 03/13/07 7,189,436 10/909,735 03/13/07 7,189,438 10/845,868 03/13/07 7,189,444 10/404,275 03/13/07 7,189,445 10/887,405 03/13/07 7,189,450 11/169,434 03/13/07 7,189,453 10/663,845 03/13/07 7,189,454 10/840,299 03/13/07 7,189,460 10/875,270 03/13/07 7,189,464 10/791,804 03/13/07 7,189,465 10/917,397 03/13/07 7,189,470 11/038,921 03/13/07 7,189,482 10/663,971 03/13/07 7,189,483 10/789,094 03/13/07 7,189,484 10/750,458 03/13/07 7,189,485 10/687,929 03/13/07 7,189,487 11/246,479 03/13/07 7,189,501 10/746,296 03/13/07 7,189,504 09/923,637 03/13/07 7,189,511 10/336,215 03/13/07 7,189,512 10/370,884 03/13/07 7,189,531 10/051,902 03/13/07 7,189,535 10/245,593 03/13/07 7,189,540 11/157,360 03/13/07 7,189,546 10/414,378 03/13/07 7,189,556 10/759,327 03/13/07 7,189,560 10/878,357 03/13/07 7,189,561 10/946,484 03/13/07 7,189,569 10/155,789 03/13/07 7,189,571 10/107,885 03/13/07 7,189,577 10/173,790 03/13/07 7,189,584 11/115,723 03/13/07 7,189,587 11/208,885 03/13/07 7,189,599 10/936,795 03/13/07 7,189,600 11/339,377 03/13/07 7,189,605 11/212,627 03/13/07 7,189,614 10/886,053 03/13/07 7,189,618 11/007,918 03/13/07 7,189,624 10/868,016 03/13/07 7,189,626 10/980,658 03/13/07 7,189,635 10/943,559 03/13/07 7,189,636 10/733,377 03/13/07 7,189,639 11/055,141 03/13/07 7,189,641 10/920,482 03/13/07 7,189,643 10/784,821 03/13/07 7,189,647 10/693,223 03/13/07 7,189,667 09/554,733 03/13/07 7,189,669 11/057,218 03/13/07 7,189,670 11/167,431 03/13/07 7,189,674 10/468,194 03/13/07 7,189,677 10/258,327 03/13/07 7,189,681 10/025,473 03/13/07 7,189,689 10/099,836 03/13/07 7,189,691 11/094,595 03/13/07 7,189,705 09/839,707 03/13/07 7,189,717 10/257,091 03/13/07 7,189,718 10/807,993 03/13/07 7,189,719 10/828,171 03/13/07 7,189,727 10/818,187 03/13/07 7,189,730 10/322,985 03/13/07 7,189,733 10/795,538 03/13/07 7,189,736 10/826,337 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 22 

 7,189,741 10/415,693 03/13/07 7,189,750 11/266,441 03/13/07 7,189,766 10/432,780 03/13/07 7,189,767 10/097,257 03/13/07 7,189,779 11/014,453 03/13/07 7,189,782 10/501,788 03/13/07 7,189,786 10/929,557 03/13/07 7,189,788 10/482,418 03/13/07 7,189,791 10/855,585 03/13/07 7,189,796 10/531,914 03/13/07 7,189,799 10/832,910 03/13/07 7,189,809 10/203,860 03/13/07 7,189,818 10/702,148 03/13/07 7,189,820 10/151,882 03/13/07 7,189,823 11/133,177 03/13/07 7,189,825 10/892,597 03/13/07 7,189,831 10/492,006 03/13/07 7,189,832 09/377,795 03/13/07 7,189,833 09/901,484 03/13/07 7,189,834 10/800,926 03/13/07 7,189,837 10/341,836 03/13/07 7,189,843 10/450,107 03/13/07 7,189,845 11/088,874 03/13/07 7,189,849 11/131,646 03/13/07 7,189,850 10/967,534 03/13/07 7,189,851 10/507,006 03/13/07 7,189,853 10/932,562 03/13/07 7,189,857 10/723,136 03/13/07 7,189,859 10/635,294 03/13/07 7,189,863 11/347,390 03/13/07 7,189,866 10/945,813 03/13/07 7,189,870 10/647,766 03/13/07 7,189,873 10/528,668 03/13/07 7,189,876 10/891,441 03/13/07 7,189,891 10/672,282 03/13/07 7,189,893 10/768,511 03/13/07 7,189,912 10/477,042 03/13/07 7,189,942 11/087,767 03/13/07 7,189,952 10/519,012 03/13/07 7,189,960 11/214,100 03/13/07 7,189,962 11/059,568 03/13/07 7,189,966 11/133,183 03/13/07 7,189,974 11/062,026 03/13/07 7,189,978 11/122,334 03/13/07 7,189,981 11/205,148 03/13/07 7,189,983 10/869,237 03/13/07 7,190,001 10/926,398 03/13/07 7,190,003 11/049,933 03/13/07 7,190,009 11/242,859 03/13/07 7,190,013 10/778,285 03/13/07 7,190,021 10/974,331 03/13/07 7,190,023 11/320,850 03/13/07 7,190,025 10/624,506 03/13/07 7,190,035 10/802,758 03/13/07 7,190,049 09/814,891 03/13/07 7,190,060 10/695,564 03/13/07 7,190,063 10/962,157 03/13/07 7,190,065 10/853,286 03/13/07 7,190,073 11/158,164 03/13/07 7,190,075 11/127,917 03/13/07 7,190,080 10/714,794 03/13/07 7,190,097 11/014,091 03/13/07 7,190,103 11/034,475 03/13/07 7,190,106 11/322,517 03/13/07 7,190,110 10/716,398 03/13/07 7,190,112 11/424,574 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 23 

 7,190,113 10/634,009 03/13/07 7,190,117 11/081,734 03/13/07 7,190,123 10/924,585 03/13/07 7,190,127 11/455,089 03/13/07 7,190,137 11/028,254 03/13/07 7,190,139 11/009,312 03/13/07 7,190,141 11/342,371 03/13/07 7,190,150 11/068,272 03/13/07 7,190,156 10/478,555 03/13/07 7,190,162 10/898,080 03/13/07 7,190,165 10/823,273 03/13/07 7,190,168 11/273,488 03/13/07 7,190,171 10/682,454 03/13/07 7,190,195 11/087,120 03/13/07 7,190,200 10/983,504 03/13/07 7,190,206 10/890,493 03/13/07 7,190,215 11/317,498 03/13/07 7,190,221 10/971,172 03/13/07 7,190,228 11/122,186 03/13/07 7,190,229 11/028,107 03/13/07 7,190,234 10/930,801 03/13/07 7,190,235 11/188,414 03/13/07 7,190,237 10/855,204 03/13/07 7,190,244 10/990,489 03/13/07 7,190,248 10/976,485 03/13/07 7,190,251 10/188,513 03/13/07 7,190,256 10/795,601 03/13/07 7,190,264 11/072,332 03/13/07 7,190,269 10/525,617 03/13/07 7,190,278 10/795,720 03/13/07 7,190,285 10/966,773 03/13/07 7,190,313 11/079,811 03/13/07 7,190,321 10/631,121 03/13/07 7,190,337 10/782,461 03/13/07 7,190,339 10/752,184 03/13/07 7,190,344 10/257,365 03/13/07 7,190,346 11/039,897 03/13/07 7,190,348 09/749,480 03/13/07 7,190,362 09/009,714 03/13/07 7,190,371 10/839,314 03/13/07 7,190,376 09/524,698 03/13/07 7,190,380 10/672,845 03/13/07 7,190,384 11/048,847 03/13/07 7,190,388 10/332,161 03/13/07 7,190,392 09/177,356 03/13/07 7,190,403 10/621,562 03/13/07 7,190,407 10/311,033 03/13/07 7,190,409 10/298,054 03/13/07 7,190,410 10/887,829 03/13/07 7,190,414 10/811,698 03/13/07 7,190,422 10/765,056 03/13/07 7,190,433 10/538,979 03/13/07 7,190,436 11/062,024 03/13/07 7,190,438 10/779,786 03/13/07 7,190,440 10/618,411 03/13/07 7,190,456 11/304,813 03/13/07 7,190,468 10/196,792 03/13/07 7,190,469 09/664,383 03/13/07 7,190,474 09/693,415 03/13/07 7,190,482 10/927,103 03/13/07 7,190,489 10/204,243 03/13/07 7,190,491 10/659,026 03/13/07 7,190,492 10/268,910 03/13/07 7,190,494 10/183,739 03/13/07 7,190,495 10/304,498 03/13/07 7,190,497 10/963,486 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 24 

 7,190,499 10/750,757 03/13/07 7,190,502 10/937,182 03/13/07 7,190,510 10/869,775 03/13/07 7,190,516 11/384,614 03/13/07 7,190,519 08/936,182 03/13/07 7,190,524 10/917,209 03/13/07 7,190,526 11/416,983 03/13/07 7,190,533 11/350,466 03/13/07 7,190,538 11/366,404 03/13/07 7,190,542 10/783,818 03/13/07 7,190,544 10/985,624 03/13/07 7,190,547 11/028,115 03/13/07 7,190,551 10/981,484 03/13/07 7,190,553 09/822,576 03/13/07 7,190,556 11/068,270 03/13/07 7,190,567 11/004,591 03/13/07 7,190,573 10/901,340 03/13/07 7,190,576 10/871,595 03/13/07 7,190,578 11/030,879 03/13/07 7,190,581 11/032,771 03/13/07 7,190,582 10/498,335 03/13/07 7,190,584 11/019,769 03/13/07 7,190,586 10/792,972 03/13/07 7,190,588 11/135,171 03/13/07 7,190,591 11/209,928 03/13/07 7,190,592 10/600,742 03/13/07 7,190,596 10/514,173 03/13/07 7,190,597 11/153,623 03/13/07 7,190,607 11/092,456 03/13/07 7,190,610 11/216,665 03/13/07 7,190,617 09/103,056 03/13/07 7,190,632 11/452,780 03/13/07 7,190,640 10/317,118 03/13/07 7,190,641 10/169,734 03/13/07 7,190,642 11/145,754 03/13/07 7,190,645 10/361,031 03/13/07 7,190,646 09/715,009 03/13/07 7,190,653 10/682,523 03/13/07 7,190,654 10/838,255 03/13/07 7,190,658 10/321,566 03/13/07 7,190,659 10/434,280 03/13/07 7,190,661 11/078,547 03/13/07 7,190,673 10/272,873 03/13/07 7,190,677 10/136,080 03/13/07 7,190,704 10/780,362 03/13/07 7,190,710 10/242,032 03/13/07 7,190,713 10/284,641 03/13/07 7,190,718 10/281,992 03/13/07 7,190,729 10/636,920 03/13/07 7,190,730 09/785,780 03/13/07 7,190,739 10/648,484 03/13/07 7,190,741 10/274,756 03/13/07 7,190,760 11/411,462 03/13/07 7,190,761 09/616,608 03/13/07 7,190,767 10/949,857 03/13/07 7,190,771 09/777,350 03/13/07 7,190,780 10/795,767 03/13/07 7,190,786 09/965,398 03/13/07 7,190,794 10/058,229 03/13/07 7,190,799 10/273,490 03/13/07 7,190,801 10/866,706 03/13/07 7,190,805 10/135,341 03/13/07 7,190,807 10/385,852 03/13/07 7,190,808 11/077,894 03/13/07 7,190,819 10/977,488 03/13/07 7,190,820 11/339,534 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 25 

 7,190,822 10/312,632 03/13/07 7,190,827 10/349,880 03/13/07 7,190,828 10/651,139 03/13/07 7,190,831 10/642,795 03/13/07 7,190,837 10/639,391 03/13/07 7,190,838 10/167,663 03/13/07 7,190,840 10/041,218 03/13/07 7,190,850 11/087,532 03/13/07 7,190,860 11/465,819 03/13/07 7,190,861 10/758,343 03/13/07 7,190,863 10/797,859 03/13/07 7,190,864 10/817,732 03/13/07 7,190,866 11/068,426 03/13/07 7,190,869 10/976,185 03/13/07 7,190,871 10/410,061 03/13/07 7,190,873 11/060,284 03/13/07 7,190,879 09/891,626 03/13/07 7,190,880 10/429,445 03/13/07 7,190,881 11/077,863 03/13/07 7,190,884 09/811,682 03/13/07 7,190,894 10/909,652 03/13/07 7,190,895 10/718,950 03/13/07 7,190,898 10/338,243 03/13/07 7,190,899 11/240,613 03/13/07 7,190,903 10/630,664 03/13/07 7,190,904 09/964,190 03/13/07 7,190,905 10/454,732 03/13/07 7,190,909 10/172,369 03/13/07 7,190,910 10/985,802 03/13/07 7,190,911 10/726,629 03/13/07 7,190,913 11/095,794 03/13/07 7,190,914 11/046,836 03/13/07 7,190,919 11/007,226 03/13/07 7,190,923 10/717,204 03/13/07 7,190,925 10/929,385 03/13/07 7,190,928 10/762,497 03/13/07 7,190,930 10/398,216 03/13/07 7,190,939 10/654,606 03/13/07 7,190,950 10/184,193 03/13/07 7,190,957 10/628,357 03/13/07 7,190,967 10/223,414 03/13/07 7,190,974 10/811,016 03/13/07 7,190,977 10/232,007 03/13/07 7,191,008 10/057,419 03/13/07 7,191,012 10/436,017 03/13/07 7,191,016 10/439,201 03/13/07 7,191,018 10/881,239 03/13/07 7,191,026 11/011,916 03/13/07 7,191,030 10/548,466 03/13/07 7,191,033 11/028,316 03/13/07 7,191,037 10/089,680 03/13/07 7,191,045 11/042,448 03/13/07 7,191,051 10/535,643 03/13/07 7,191,052 10/519,960 03/13/07 7,191,058 10/656,522 03/13/07 7,191,061 10/418,667 03/13/07 7,191,066 11/053,219 03/13/07 7,191,070 11/004,597 03/13/07 7,191,071 11/001,035 03/13/07 7,191,075 10/492,126 03/13/07 7,191,078 10/995,963 03/13/07 7,191,084 11/110,487 03/13/07 7,191,098 11/232,739 03/13/07 7,191,102 09/785,208 03/13/07 7,191,105 10/350,393 03/13/07 7,191,107 10/627,274 03/13/07
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 26 

 7,191,112 09/843,573 03/13/07 7,191,120 10/675,947 03/13/07 7,191,124 10/253,882 03/13/07 7,191,131 09/763,832 03/13/07 7,191,132 10/158,084 03/13/07 7,191,145 09/930,676 03/13/07 7,191,149 09/587,400 03/13/07 7,191,157 10/644,949 03/13/07 7,191,161 10/637,087 03/13/07 7,191,168 10/254,378 03/13/07 7,191,173 10/805,376 03/13/07 7,191,177 09/945,677 03/13/07 7,191,187 10/401,008 03/13/07 7,191,190 09/820,088 03/13/07 7,191,191 10/122,090 03/13/07 7,191,197 10/444,642 03/13/07 7,191,200 10/616,646 03/13/07 7,191,203 10/253,640 03/13/07 7,191,204 10/168,430 03/13/07 7,191,217 10/342,389 03/13/07 7,191,218 09/613,407 03/13/07 7,191,230 11/313,354 03/13/07 7,191,236 09/836,163 03/13/07 7,191,250 09/811,994 03/13/07 7,191,259 10/119,889 03/13/07 7,191,260 10/757,789 03/13/07 7,191,263 10/812,940 03/13/07 7,191,271 09/955,961 03/13/07 7,191,275 10/953,492 03/13/07 7,191,286 10/809,589 03/13/07 7,191,297 10/674,976 03/13/07 7,191,311 10/734,340 03/13/07 7,191,317 09/395,297 03/13/07 7,191,319 09/631,174 03/13/07 7,191,323 10/157,884 03/13/07 7,191,338 10/335,019 03/13/07 7,191,352 10/902,542 03/13/07 7,191,358 11/228,859 03/13/07 7,191,360 10/625,680 03/13/07 7,191,370 10/501,160 03/13/07 7,191,376 10/728,338 03/13/07 7,191,382 10/452,603 03/13/07 7,191,385 10/755,197 03/13/07 7,191,392 09/533,152 03/13/07 7,191,398 10/107,579 03/13/07 7,191,404 10/046,940 03/13/07 7,191,407 09/614,852 03/13/07 7,191,415 11/104,615 03/13/07 7,191,427 10/830,862 03/13/07 7,191,430 09/963,270 03/13/07 7,191,434 10/094,241 03/13/07 7,191,439 09/796,031 03/13/07 7,191,441 10/213,048 03/13/07 7,191,448 09/923,969 03/13/07 7,191,449 09/785,942 03/13/07 7,191,456 10/887,012 03/13/07 7,191,465 10/987,571 03/13/07 PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON March 15, 2015 DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES Patent Application Issue Number Number Date 7,904,967 12/012,918 03/15/11 7,904,972 12/198,093 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 27 

 7,904,973 11/841,002 03/15/11 7,904,976 11/741,214 03/15/11 7,904,979 11/671,188 03/15/11 7,904,987 11/697,261 03/15/11 7,904,989 12/025,018 03/15/11 7,904,994 12/097,369 03/15/11 7,904,995 11/399,794 03/15/11 7,904,996 12/649,080 03/15/11 7,905,004 11/840,201 03/15/11 7,905,019 10/589,388 03/15/11 7,905,025 09/480,520 03/15/11 7,905,039 12/284,176 03/15/11 7,905,040 12/288,316 03/15/11 7,905,052 11/943,018 03/15/11 7,905,053 12/229,961 03/15/11 7,905,058 10/673,643 03/15/11 7,905,077 12/373,431 03/15/11 7,905,091 11/661,641 03/15/11 7,905,097 12/573,228 03/15/11 7,905,104 12/151,298 03/15/11 7,905,110 12/384,365 03/15/11 7,905,111 10/639,506 03/15/11 7,905,115 11/813,449 03/15/11 7,905,116 12/578,979 03/15/11 7,905,121 10/550,002 03/15/11 7,905,124 12/365,904 03/15/11 7,905,135 12/659,053 03/15/11 7,905,145 12/091,086 03/15/11 7,905,147 12/501,417 03/15/11 7,905,148 12/501,418 03/15/11 7,905,151 12/606,777 03/15/11 7,905,161 12/141,802 03/15/11 7,905,163 12/218,304 03/15/11 7,905,179 11/879,530 03/15/11 7,905,180 11/714,959 03/15/11 7,905,188 12/171,830 03/15/11 7,905,189 12/153,165 03/15/11 7,905,193 12/005,977 03/15/11 7,905,195 11/486,005 03/15/11 7,905,220 12/622,815 03/15/11 7,905,222 11/968,192 03/15/11 7,905,227 11/042,031 03/15/11 7,905,235 12/125,452 03/15/11 7,905,239 11/718,331 03/15/11 7,905,248 11/884,271 03/15/11 7,905,255 11/512,029 03/15/11 7,905,258 11/752,375 03/15/11 7,905,264 11/657,100 03/15/11 7,905,266 12/007,233 03/15/11 7,905,268 12/564,431 03/15/11 7,905,271 12/084,739 03/15/11 7,905,276 11/703,867 03/15/11 7,905,280 12/030,005 03/15/11 7,905,295 12/239,086 03/15/11 7,905,298 12/025,041 03/15/11 7,905,299 12/233,363 03/15/11 7,905,303 12/685,360 03/15/11 7,905,306 12/472,220 03/15/11 7,905,310 11/788,155 03/15/11 7,905,315 12/179,028 03/15/11 7,905,327 12/322,759 03/15/11 7,905,348 11/013,446 03/15/11 7,905,358 11/482,881 03/15/11 7,905,359 12/422,734 03/15/11 7,905,363 11/739,857 03/15/11 7,905,365 11/295,751 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 28 

 7,905,368 12/073,836 03/15/11 7,905,374 11/773,063 03/15/11 7,905,388 11/008,926 03/15/11 7,905,391 12/171,234 03/15/11 7,905,394 12/066,328 03/15/11 7,905,401 11/041,609 03/15/11 7,905,402 11/636,191 03/15/11 7,905,403 11/398,978 03/15/11 7,905,405 12/025,760 03/15/11 7,905,406 12/025,761 03/15/11 7,905,410 11/906,536 03/15/11 7,905,422 10/589,002 03/15/11 7,905,423 12/025,748 03/15/11 7,905,430 12/150,051 03/15/11 7,905,445 12/292,011 03/15/11 7,905,458 12/322,027 03/15/11 7,905,459 11/646,789 03/15/11 7,905,460 12/140,464 03/15/11 7,905,463 11/909,129 03/15/11 7,905,468 10/579,885 03/15/11 7,905,475 12/358,202 03/15/11 7,905,487 11/986,452 03/15/11 7,905,488 11/676,402 03/15/11 7,905,490 12/200,157 03/15/11 7,905,491 12/388,284 03/15/11 7,905,501 11/902,970 03/15/11 7,905,502 12/157,626 03/15/11 7,905,508 11/957,380 03/15/11 7,905,517 11/914,822 03/15/11 7,905,524 11/113,165 03/15/11 7,905,526 12/227,089 03/15/11 7,905,527 12/079,087 03/15/11 7,905,532 12/025,218 03/15/11 7,905,539 12/447,724 03/15/11 7,905,540 12/178,738 03/15/11 7,905,541 12/439,772 03/15/11 7,905,553 12/061,171 03/15/11 7,905,564 12/267,969 03/15/11 7,905,567 12/122,646 03/15/11 7,905,574 12/333,210 03/15/11 7,905,578 12/450,049 03/15/11 7,905,588 12/211,003 03/15/11 7,905,591 11/923,445 03/15/11 7,905,593 12/709,687 03/15/11 7,905,600 11/628,450 03/15/11 7,905,605 11/610,242 03/15/11 7,905,616 12/191,369 03/15/11 7,905,622 12/423,871 03/15/11 7,905,645 12/147,699 03/15/11 7,905,654 11/787,972 03/15/11 7,905,656 12/006,812 03/15/11 7,905,662 12/099,167 03/15/11 7,905,675 12/395,742 03/15/11 7,905,696 12/402,510 03/15/11 7,905,698 12/205,181 03/15/11 7,905,711 11/781,510 03/15/11 7,905,718 11/867,206 03/15/11 7,905,728 11/867,860 03/15/11 7,905,729 11/813,623 03/15/11 7,905,730 12/342,345 03/15/11 7,905,747 12/225,212 03/15/11 7,905,752 12/181,550 03/15/11 7,905,756 11/902,477 03/15/11 7,905,758 12/172,231 03/15/11 7,905,765 11/562,650 03/15/11 7,905,770 10/770,613 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 29 

 7,905,771 12/270,398 03/15/11 7,905,775 10/908,725 03/15/11 7,905,788 11/276,049 03/15/11 7,905,794 12/017,233 03/15/11 7,905,800 12/340,096 03/15/11 7,905,802 11/974,614 03/15/11 7,905,809 12/871,555 03/15/11 7,905,810 12/042,812 03/15/11 7,905,816 12/565,195 03/15/11 7,905,819 12/427,115 03/15/11 7,905,822 10/995,087 03/15/11 7,905,827 11/496,560 03/15/11 7,905,842 11/639,098 03/15/11 7,905,846 11/449,210 03/15/11 7,905,849 12/321,804 03/15/11 7,905,856 11/085,499 03/15/11 7,905,858 12/048,466 03/15/11 7,905,862 11/735,921 03/15/11 7,905,880 11/752,222 03/15/11 7,905,901 10/998,422 03/15/11 7,905,907 10/990,221 03/15/11 7,905,931 12/027,979 03/15/11 7,905,934 12/365,315 03/15/11 7,905,965 11/563,700 03/15/11 7,905,969 12/257,600 03/15/11 7,905,981 10/457,790 03/15/11 7,905,984 12/412,839 03/15/11 7,905,985 12/017,150 03/15/11 7,905,993 11/942,955 03/15/11 7,905,995 12/172,574 03/15/11 7,906,002 11/882,400 03/15/11 7,906,005 10/913,954 03/15/11 7,906,047 11/313,500 03/15/11 7,906,060 12/105,704 03/15/11 7,906,067 12/006,746 03/15/11 7,906,073 10/611,236 03/15/11 7,906,080 11/694,281 03/15/11 7,906,096 10/585,307 03/15/11 7,906,125 10/664,601 03/15/11 7,906,132 10/527,921 03/15/11 7,906,141 10/084,676 03/15/11 7,906,163 11/488,282 03/15/11 7,906,179 11/996,414 03/15/11 7,906,181 12/706,359 03/15/11 7,906,199 11/020,921 03/15/11 7,906,234 11/500,358 03/15/11 7,906,246 11/563,009 03/15/11 7,906,267 11/878,818 03/15/11 7,906,272 12/132,556 03/15/11 7,906,278 10/242,535 03/15/11 7,906,283 11/925,334 03/15/11 7,906,287 12/152,512 03/15/11 7,906,293 11/697,835 03/15/11 7,906,302 12/291,462 03/15/11 7,906,304 11/100,348 03/15/11 7,906,306 12/202,808 03/15/11 7,906,309 10/257,629 03/15/11 7,906,322 10/866,708 03/15/11 7,906,324 11/433,375 03/15/11 7,906,339 12/762,238 03/15/11 7,906,343 11/813,468 03/15/11 7,906,346 12/187,846 03/15/11 7,906,347 12/826,852 03/15/11 7,906,357 11/383,456 03/15/11 7,906,365 11/848,976 03/15/11 7,906,374 12/057,387 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 30 

 7,906,382 11/157,878 03/15/11 7,906,386 12/201,427 03/15/11 7,906,393 10/767,298 03/15/11 7,906,419 12/275,332 03/15/11 7,906,438 11/669,431 03/15/11 7,906,440 11/815,266 03/15/11 7,906,479 12/100,674 03/15/11 7,906,480 10/515,551 03/15/11 7,906,481 11/648,957 03/15/11 7,906,482 11/923,222 03/15/11 7,906,485 11/916,416 03/15/11 7,906,486 12/526,585 03/15/11 7,906,497 12/792,942 03/15/11 7,906,502 11/993,463 03/15/11 7,906,503 12/288,518 03/15/11 7,906,506 11/827,648 03/15/11 7,906,516 10/551,557 03/15/11 7,906,518 11/823,335 03/15/11 7,906,521 10/572,341 03/15/11 7,906,522 11/912,679 03/15/11 7,906,528 11/664,565 03/15/11 7,906,530 12/376,499 03/15/11 7,906,532 11/995,179 03/15/11 7,906,533 11/262,953 03/15/11 7,906,537 10/550,448 03/15/11 7,906,538 11/930,907 03/15/11 7,906,540 12/079,649 03/15/11 7,906,541 12/329,739 03/15/11 7,906,545 12/505,175 03/15/11 7,906,546 12/774,779 03/15/11 7,906,547 12/456,165 03/15/11 7,906,554 10/530,176 03/15/11 7,906,556 11/546,453 03/15/11 7,906,560 11/889,305 03/15/11 7,906,568 11/849,414 03/15/11 7,906,579 12/227,298 03/15/11 7,906,581 11/850,138 03/15/11 7,906,590 12/009,930 03/15/11 7,906,594 11/520,415 03/15/11 7,906,597 10/589,315 03/15/11 7,906,609 11/996,235 03/15/11 7,906,614 12/305,029 03/15/11 7,906,620 10/524,787 03/15/11 7,906,629 11/669,200 03/15/11 7,906,630 11/114,629 03/15/11 7,906,638 12/371,188 03/15/11 7,906,640 11/931,784 03/15/11 7,906,645 11/793,606 03/15/11 7,906,646 12/483,781 03/15/11 7,906,648 12/501,328 03/15/11 7,906,650 12/359,749 03/15/11 7,906,652 11/602,577 03/15/11 7,906,653 12/759,328 03/15/11 7,906,660 11/442,369 03/15/11 7,906,667 12/161,695 03/15/11 7,906,676 12/376,424 03/15/11 7,906,677 12/436,991 03/15/11 7,906,686 12/532,388 03/15/11 7,906,687 12/449,845 03/15/11 7,906,689 11/983,368 03/15/11 7,906,692 11/914,874 03/15/11 7,906,702 11/619,842 03/15/11 7,906,703 11/552,265 03/15/11 7,906,715 12/156,690 03/15/11 7,906,717 12/346,581 03/15/11 7,906,719 11/235,502 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 31 

 7,906,727 12/198,334 03/15/11 7,906,732 12/324,985 03/15/11 7,906,743 12/169,733 03/15/11 7,906,745 11/009,123 03/15/11 7,906,746 11/164,650 03/15/11 7,906,757 11/718,923 03/15/11 7,906,763 12/221,410 03/15/11 7,906,768 12/159,790 03/15/11 7,906,785 11/585,212 03/15/11 7,906,787 12/545,795 03/15/11 7,906,813 11/709,179 03/15/11 7,906,820 12/263,127 03/15/11 7,906,822 12/164,670 03/15/11 7,906,823 12/195,587 03/15/11 7,906,848 12/389,071 03/15/11 7,906,853 11/899,523 03/15/11 7,906,854 12/285,752 03/15/11 7,906,866 12/101,864 03/15/11 7,906,870 11/872,598 03/15/11 7,906,871 12/346,261 03/15/11 7,906,872 12/161,556 03/15/11 7,906,904 10/026,871 03/15/11 7,906,907 12/010,323 03/15/11 7,906,908 11/979,830 03/15/11 7,906,909 12/165,953 03/15/11 7,906,918 12/067,051 03/15/11 7,906,927 12/162,828 03/15/11 7,906,939 12/071,729 03/15/11 7,906,951 12/149,911 03/15/11 7,906,959 10/530,485 03/15/11 7,906,971 12/250,785 03/15/11 7,906,981 12/557,483 03/15/11 7,906,986 11/959,401 03/15/11 7,906,990 12/677,745 03/15/11 7,906,991 11/897,812 03/15/11 7,906,993 12/613,279 03/15/11 7,907,004 12/174,422 03/15/11 7,907,011 12/461,531 03/15/11 7,907,013 12/385,985 03/15/11 7,907,025 12/017,186 03/15/11 7,907,031 12/096,597 03/15/11 7,907,039 12/520,509 03/15/11 7,907,051 11/451,820 03/15/11 7,907,059 11/890,077 03/15/11 7,907,068 12/423,935 03/15/11 7,907,073 12/431,581 03/15/11 7,907,081 12/159,101 03/15/11 7,907,094 12/159,108 03/15/11 7,907,102 11/781,434 03/15/11 7,907,103 11/349,278 03/15/11 7,907,119 12/003,227 03/15/11 7,907,127 11/926,421 03/15/11 7,907,143 12/467,796 03/15/11 7,907,147 11/857,870 03/15/11 7,907,158 11/716,711 03/15/11 7,907,168 10/150,945 03/15/11 7,907,170 11/365,506 03/15/11 7,907,176 11/739,008 03/15/11 7,907,177 11/739,807 03/15/11 7,907,184 11/195,824 03/15/11 7,907,187 11/780,327 03/15/11 7,907,194 11/968,238 03/15/11 7,907,200 11/662,946 03/15/11 7,907,207 11/924,446 03/15/11 7,907,218 11/593,508 03/15/11 7,907,247 11/914,612 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 32 

 7,907,250 11/861,376 03/15/11 7,907,251 11/994,240 03/15/11 7,907,256 11/757,771 03/15/11 7,907,257 11/997,046 03/15/11 7,907,263 12/493,229 03/15/11 7,907,266 12/468,804 03/15/11 7,907,283 12/282,996 03/15/11 7,907,285 12/088,737 03/15/11 7,907,299 11/303,316 03/15/11 7,907,300 11/607,972 03/15/11 7,907,307 11/905,117 03/15/11 7,907,310 12/116,165 03/15/11 7,907,320 12/072,450 03/15/11 7,907,325 12/072,452 03/15/11 7,907,326 11/749,993 03/15/11 7,907,332 12/227,724 03/15/11 7,907,353 12/457,360 03/15/11 7,907,358 12/550,021 03/15/11 7,907,363 12/619,933 03/15/11 7,907,373 11/226,193 03/15/11 7,907,387 11/915,199 03/15/11 7,907,390 11/693,316 03/15/11 7,907,392 12/103,624 03/15/11 7,907,406 12/567,954 03/15/11 7,907,407 12/081,271 03/15/11 7,907,415 11/997,083 03/15/11 7,907,420 11/817,991 03/15/11 7,907,423 11/867,036 03/15/11 7,907,432 12/495,202 03/15/11 7,907,437 12/471,526 03/15/11 7,907,439 12/332,594 03/15/11 7,907,440 12/119,345 03/15/11 7,907,442 12/445,075 03/15/11 7,907,462 12/005,506 03/15/11 7,907,469 12/183,923 03/15/11 7,907,473 12/216,673 03/15/11 7,907,474 11/906,347 03/15/11 7,907,482 11/995,546 03/15/11 7,907,483 12/254,276 03/15/11 7,907,484 12/191,653 03/15/11 7,907,489 11/905,337 03/15/11 7,907,496 12/295,597 03/15/11 7,907,498 11/227,227 03/15/11 7,907,499 12/309,495 03/15/11 7,907,500 11/790,003 03/15/11 7,907,501 11/608,724 03/15/11 7,907,502 11/577,746 03/15/11 7,907,515 11/689,062 03/15/11 7,907,534 11/428,100 03/15/11 7,907,569 11/882,235 03/15/11 7,907,577 10/144,250 03/15/11 7,907,596 12/325,320 03/15/11 7,907,604 12/134,952 03/15/11 7,907,607 10/211,002 03/15/11 7,907,610 11/915,285 03/15/11 7,907,614 11/558,889 03/15/11 7,907,615 10/800,106 03/15/11 7,907,630 11/928,683 03/15/11 7,907,633 12/390,249 03/15/11 7,907,646 11/997,108 03/15/11 7,907,651 12/379,216 03/15/11 7,907,652 12/109,124 03/15/11 7,907,655 12/082,887 03/15/11 7,907,657 11/478,924 03/15/11 7,907,660 12/072,328 03/15/11 7,907,670 11/889,469 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 33 

 7,907,675 11/897,226 03/15/11 7,907,676 12/574,629 03/15/11 7,907,678 11/434,068 03/15/11 7,907,722 10/587,727 03/15/11 7,907,723 11/748,209 03/15/11 7,907,734 11/817,623 03/15/11 7,907,741 11/446,746 03/15/11 7,907,746 11/494,707 03/15/11 7,907,747 11/791,838 03/15/11 7,907,751 11/638,013 03/15/11 7,907,753 10/092,883 03/15/11 7,907,762 12/014,034 03/15/11 7,907,767 11/757,786 03/15/11 7,907,773 11/643,605 03/15/11 7,907,781 11/766,174 03/15/11 7,907,784 11/774,704 03/15/11 7,907,796 12/242,375 03/15/11 7,907,808 11/991,458 03/15/11 7,907,845 11/976,535 03/15/11 7,907,852 11/657,105 03/15/11 7,907,853 11/812,344 03/15/11 7,907,862 11/850,237 03/15/11 7,907,872 11/495,639 03/15/11 7,907,885 12/336,791 03/15/11 7,907,890 11/697,512 03/15/11 7,907,895 10/524,485 03/15/11 7,907,905 12/022,139 03/15/11 7,907,907 11/494,396 03/15/11 7,907,908 12/068,048 03/15/11 7,907,937 11/964,614 03/15/11 7,907,949 11/561,551 03/15/11 7,907,960 11/361,440 03/15/11 7,907,961 11/422,689 03/15/11 7,907,968 12/786,286 03/15/11 7,907,981 11/573,189 03/15/11 7,908,001 11/209,976 03/15/11 7,908,022 12/235,997 03/15/11 7,908,032 11/799,201 03/15/11 7,908,038 11/513,752 03/15/11 7,908,052 10/089,089 03/15/11 7,908,054 11/576,842 03/15/11 7,908,055 12/687,428 03/15/11 7,908,070 11/993,853 03/15/11 7,908,087 10/505,884 03/15/11 7,908,090 11/605,859 03/15/11 7,908,092 11/188,442 03/15/11 7,908,104 12/025,095 03/15/11 7,908,106 11/285,529 03/15/11 7,908,110 12/177,169 03/15/11 7,908,124 11/791,616 03/15/11 7,908,131 11/554,887 03/15/11 7,908,142 11/805,371 03/15/11 7,908,143 10/834,672 03/15/11 7,908,145 11/559,297 03/15/11 7,908,147 11/410,414 03/15/11 7,908,162 11/247,696 03/15/11 7,908,163 11/458,030 03/15/11 7,908,169 11/042,388 03/15/11 7,908,197 12/026,781 03/15/11 7,908,199 10/086,116 03/15/11 7,908,225 09/431,833 03/15/11 7,908,228 10/738,662 03/15/11 7,908,233 11/771,887 03/15/11 7,908,236 11/459,004 03/15/11 7,908,237 11/771,912 03/15/11 7,908,246 12/043,819 03/15/11
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 34 

 7,908,251 12/192,291 03/15/11 7,908,256 11/948,154 03/15/11 7,908,268 11/944,776 03/15/11 7,908,282 11/848,305 03/15/11 7,908,298 11/836,174 03/15/11 7,908,305 12/103,260 03/15/11 7,908,308 11/748,619 03/15/11 7,908,309 11/079,126 03/15/11 7,908,323 10/507,656 03/15/11 7,908,331 12/177,907 03/15/11 7,908,336 12/335,181 03/15/11 7,908,349 11/860,930 03/15/11 7,908,353 12/101,181 03/15/11 7,908,354 12/617,711 03/15/11 7,908,355 10/460,443 03/15/11 7,908,369 12/279,625 03/15/11 7,908,373 11/264,315 03/15/11 7,908,374 11/755,084 03/15/11 7,908,375 11/776,229 03/15/11 7,908,382 11/422,670 03/15/11 7,908,385 12/388,330 03/15/11 7,908,416 11/569,753 03/15/11 7,908,439 11/767,717 03/15/11 7,908,443 12/136,750 03/15/11 7,908,444 12/656,935 03/15/11 7,908,457 12/114,945 03/15/11 7,908,462 12/797,416 03/15/11 7,908,477 10/899,081 03/15/11 7,908,478 10/579,397 03/15/11 7,908,498 12/834,595 03/15/11 7,908,508 12/467,275 03/15/11 7,908,517 12/629,183 03/15/11 7,908,518 12/028,039 03/15/11 7,908,519 12/275,905 03/15/11 7,908,520 09/886,959 03/15/11 7,908,545 11/653,014 03/15/11 7,908,553 10/210,524 03/15/11 7,908,561 11/974,470 03/15/11 7,908,562 10/691,885 03/15/11 7,908,564 11/536,934 03/15/11 7,908,565 12/100,155 03/15/11 7,908,576 11/953,366 03/15/11 7,908,582 11/608,453 03/15/11 7,908,583 11/321,673 03/15/11 7,908,587 11/520,375 03/15/11 7,908,599 11/335,767 03/15/11 7,908,604 11/312,345 03/15/11 7,908,609 11/549,757 03/15/11 7,908,610 11/831,018 03/15/11 7,908,612 11/943,156 03/15/11 7,908,613 12/073,856 03/15/11 7,908,618 09/859,114 03/15/11 7,908,631 10/393,707 03/15/11 7,908,636 11/776,965 03/15/11 7,908,652 10/027,714 03/15/11 7,908,661 12/023,005 03/15/11 7,908,664 11/469,137 03/15/11
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 35 

Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 04/06/2015
 Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 04/06/2015 Patent Application Filing Issue Granted Number Number Date Date Date 6,470,980 09/694,056 10/03/2000 10/29/2002 04/08/2015 6,490,616 09/332,069 06/14/1999 12/03/2002 04/10/2015 6,490,837 09/530,833 08/17/2000 12/10/2002 04/10/2015 6,525,002 09/566,042 05/06/2000 02/25/2003 04/07/2015 6,529,132 09/986,400 11/08/2001 03/04/2003 04/10/2015 6,540,401 09/851,557 05/10/2001 04/01/2003 04/06/2015 6,944,343 09/871,182 05/31/2001 09/13/2005 04/10/2015 6,968,343 09/944,697 08/31/2001 11/22/2005 04/07/2015 7,007,865 10/640,990 08/14/2003 03/07/2006 04/08/2015 7,046,440 10/238,181 09/10/2002 05/16/2006 04/08/2015 7,051,806 10/669,839 09/24/2003 05/30/2006 04/08/2015 7,057,289 10/670,497 09/26/2003 06/06/2006 04/09/2015 7,068,671 09/852,009 05/07/2001 06/27/2006 04/06/2015 7,099,835 09/748,729 12/26/2000 08/29/2006 04/10/2015 7,111,280 09/792,473 02/23/2001 09/19/2006 04/10/2015 7,120,905 10/354,898 01/29/2003 10/10/2006 04/10/2015 7,140,199 11/100,264 04/05/2005 11/28/2006 04/07/2015 7,191,940 11/162,910 09/28/2005 03/20/2007 04/06/2015 7,578,386 11/570,588 12/13/2006 08/25/2009 04/09/2015 7,582,614 10/547,859 07/13/2006 09/01/2009 04/09/2015 7,665,062 10/711,148 08/27/2004 02/16/2010 04/07/2015 7,763,236 12/363,661 01/30/2009 07/27/2010 04/10/2015 7,831,203 11/944,695 11/26/2007 11/09/2010 04/09/2015 7,861,705 12/069,593 02/12/2008 01/04/2011 04/08/2015 7,862,332 11/777,165 07/12/2007 01/04/2011 04/07/2015 7,869,010 12/359,034 01/23/2009 01/11/2011 04/07/2015 7,893,385 11/681,171 03/01/2007 02/22/2011 04/10/2015 7,913,599 11/582,265 10/17/2006 03/29/2011 04/06/2015
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 36 

Reissue Applications Filed
 Reissue Applications Filed Notice under 37 CFR 1.11(b). The reissue applications listed below are open to public inspection by the general public through the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) on the USPTO internet web site (www.uspto.gov), and copies may be obtained by paying the fee therefor (37 CFR 1.19). D. 688,349, Re. S.N.: 29/523,148, Apr. 07, 2015, Cl.: D23, PROPPANT VESSEL BASE, John Oren, et al., Owner of Record: OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Houston, TX, Attorney or Agent: Taylor P. Evans, Ex. Gp.: 2911 D. 688,349, Re. S.N.: 29/523,150, Apr. 07, 2015, Cl.: D23, PROPPANT VESSEL BASE, John Oren, et al., Owner of Record: OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Houston, TX, Attorney or Agent: Taylor P. Evans, Ex. Gp.: 2911 6,745,199, Re. S.N.: 14/679,446, Apr. 06, 2015, Cl.: 707/102, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM STORING MEDIUM, Toshihiro Morita, et al., Owner of Record: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, JP, Attorney or Agent: William S. Frommer, Ex. Gp.: 2161 6,848,366, Re. S.N.: 14/670,912, Mar. 27, 2015, Cl.: 102, BINARY EXPLOXING TARGET, PACKAGE PROCESS AND PRODUCT, Daniel Jeremy Tanner, Pleasant Hill, OR, Owner of Record: Tannerite Sports, LLC, Pleasant Hill, OR, Daniel Jeremy Tanner, Pleasant Hill, OR, Attorney or Agent: Garth M. Dahlen, Ex. Gp.: 3641 7,354,939, Re. S.N.: 14/544,396, Aug. 23, 2013, Cl.: 514, PYRROLE INHIBITORS OF ERK PROTEIN KINASE, SYNTHESIS THEREOF AND INTERMEDIATES THERETO, Gabriel Martinez BOTELLA, et.al., Owner of Record: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Cambridge, MA, Attorney or Agent: Daniel A. Pearson, Ex. Gp.: 1629 7,372,614, Re. S.N.: 14/663,327, Mar. 19, 2015, Cl.: 359/290, METHOD OF USING DEFORMABLE MIRROR USING PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATORS FORMED AS AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT, Pradeep K. Govil, et al., Owner of Record: ASML Holding N.V., Veldhoven, Netherlands, Attorney or Agent: Jason D. Eisenberg, Ex. Gp.: 2872 7,372,614, Re. S.N.: 14/663,333, Mar. 19, 2015, Cl.: 359/290, METHOD OF USING DEFORMABLE MIRROR USING PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATORS FORMED AS AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT, Pradeep K. Govil, et al., Owner of Record: ASML Holding N.V., Veldhoven, Netherlands, Attorney or Agent: Jason D. Eisenberg, Ex. Gp.: 2872 7,606,951, Re. S.N.: 14/678,725, Apr. 03, 2015, Cl.: 710, MEMORY REUSE FOR MULTIPLE ENDPOINTS IN USB DEVICE, Nancy G. Woodbridge, Austin, TX, Owner of Record: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Attorney or Agent: Lehua Wang, Ex. Gp.: 2182 7,894,985, Re. S.N.: 14/521,891, Oct. 23, 2014, Cl.: 701, FACILITY SEARCHING DEVICE, PROGRAM, NAVIGATION DEVICE, AND FACILITY SEARCHING METHOD, Hiromi Uchida, Owner of Record: JVC Kenwood Corporation, Attorney or Agent: Eric Robinson, Ex. Gp.: 2856 8,210,009, Re. S.N.: 14/677,496, Aug. 02. 2015, Cl.:070, PROFILED KEY FOR CYLINDER LOCKS, Bo Widen, Owner of Record: Winloc AG, Zug Schweiz, CH, Attorney or Agent: James M. Slattery, Ex. Gp.: 3673 8,393,928, Re. S.N.: 14/644,162, Mar. 10, 2015, Cl.: 441, FIN ATTACHMENT STRUCTURE, Katsuyoshi KUMANO,et al., Owner of Record: Michiaki Ishida; Masaaki Ikeda, Dana Point, CA Attorney or Agent: Reece Nienstadt, Ex. Gp.:3617
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 37 

8,416,376, Re. S.N.: 14/681,623, Apr. 08, 2015, Cl.: 349/117, COMPENSATED IN-PLANE SWITCHING MODE LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY, Serguei Petrovich Palto, Owner of Record: CRYSOPTIX K.K., Tokyo, JP, Attorney or Agent: Adam Whiting, Ex. Gp.: 2871 8,493,786, Re. S.N.: 14/657,249, Mar. 13, 2015, Cl.: 365/185.180, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE FOR SHORT-CIRCUITING OUTPUT TERMINALS OF TWO OR MORE VOLTAGE GENERATOR CIRCUITS AT READ TIME AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THE SAME, Takeshi Nakano, et al., Owner of Record: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, Minato-ku, Japan, Attorney or Agent: Carl E. Schlier, Ex. Gp.: 2827 8,544,182, Re. S.N.: 14/679,506, Apr. 06, 2015, Cl.: 033/518, ASSEMBLY FOR LEVELING NEW CONCRETE AND SUB-GRADE, Keri J. Storjohann, Owner of Record: KCK Inventions, LLC, Johnston, IA, Attorney or Agent: Timothy Zarley, Ex. Gp.: 2855 8,649,802, Re. S.N.: 14/680,662, Apr. 07, 2015, Cl.: 455/417, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCATION BASED CALL SIGNAL CONVERSION SERVICE IN A WIRE-LESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK, Young Ki Jeon, et al., Owner of Record: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, KR, Attorney or Agent: Donald A. DiPaula, Ex. Gp.: 2642 8,887,688, Re. S.N.: 14/627,160, Feb. 20, 2015, Cl.: 123/196.00R, OIL FILTERING AND COOLING SYSTEM FOR COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES, Gene Neal, et al., Owner of Record: Neal Technologies IP Holdings, LLC, Mesa, AZ, Attorney or Agent: John D. Titus, Ex. Gp.: 3747
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 38 

Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
 Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed 5,601,557, Reexam. C.N. 90/013,470, Requested Date: Mar. 19, 2015, Cl. 606/072, Title: ANCHORING AND MANIPULATING TISSUE, Inventor: John O. Hayhurst, Owners of Record: John O. Hayhurst, Milwaukie, OR, Attorney or Agent: Hancock Hughey, LLP., Portland, OR, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: David B. Fourner, Perkins Coie, LLP., Seattle, WA 7,131,367, Reexam. C.N. 90/013,466, Requested Date: Mar. 11, 2015, Cl. 089/198, Title: HYDRAULIC BOLT BUFFER FOR FIREARM, Inventor: Timothy J. Boerschig et al., Owners of Record: ITT Enidine, Inc., Orchard Park, NY, Attorney or Agent: Hiscock & Barclay, LLP., Syracuse, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Kyntec Corporation, Patrick A. Quinlan, Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP., Buffalo, NY 8,815,512, Reexam. C.N. 90/013,467, Requested Date: Mar. 13, 2015, Cl. 435/006, Title: METHOD FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT AFLP-BASED POLYMORPHISM DETECTION, Inventor: Michael Josephus Theresia Van Eijk et al., Owners of Record: Keygene, NV., Netherlands, Attorney or Agent: Foley & Lardner, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Cornell University, Michael L. Goldman, LeClairRyan, Rochester, NY
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 39 

Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew
 Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew 15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be renewed for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period upon payment of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable application for renewal. This may be done at any time within one year before the expiration of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or it may be done within six months after such expiration on payment of an additional fee. According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1059. TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED April 10, 2015 DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date 967,411 72/404,506 09/04/1973 2,882,119 76/187,114 09/07/2004 2,880,780 76/474,317 09/07/2004 2,883,109 78/200,332 09/07/2004 2,883,228 78/223,086 09/07/2004 1,292,809 73/426,582 09/04/1984 1,852,501 74/250,055 09/06/1994 2,881,902 75/358,338 09/07/2004 2,881,903 75/412,373 09/07/2004 2,881,904 75/419,264 09/07/2004 2,880,563 75/473,497 09/07/2004 2,881,918 75/578,095 09/07/2004 2,881,920 75/584,253 09/07/2004 2,881,921 75/586,398 09/07/2004 2,880,568 75/632,696 09/07/2004 2,881,926 75/642,583 09/07/2004 2,881,927 75/643,870 09/07/2004 2,881,933 75/682,905 09/07/2004 2,881,941 75/751,399 09/07/2004 2,881,947 75/783,842 09/07/2004 2,880,572 75/786,071 09/07/2004 2,881,951 75/792,301 09/07/2004 2,881,956 75/811,996 09/07/2004 2,881,960 75/823,029 09/07/2004 2,881,985 75/904,402 09/07/2004 2,881,987 75/907,401 09/07/2004 2,881,995 75/924,507 09/07/2004 2,881,998 75/927,544 09/07/2004 2,880,578 75/939,111 09/07/2004 2,882,005 75/955,389 09/07/2004 2,880,582 75/983,467 09/07/2004 2,882,013 76/001,853 09/07/2004 2,882,016 76/008,584 09/07/2004 2,882,022 76/023,623 09/07/2004 2,882,028 76/033,152 09/07/2004 2,880,589 76/037,913 09/07/2004 2,882,034 76/040,226 09/07/2004 2,882,035 76/042,031 09/07/2004 2,882,051 76/071,125 09/07/2004 2,882,056 76/079,589 09/07/2004 2,880,597 76/086,620 09/07/2004 2,880,599 76/092,197 09/07/2004 2,880,601 76/104,262 09/07/2004 2,882,076 76/122,021 09/07/2004 2,882,077 76/124,072 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 40 

 2,882,078 76/125,994 09/07/2004 2,882,083 76/137,651 09/07/2004 2,882,085 76/141,268 09/07/2004 2,882,095 76/156,510 09/07/2004 2,880,612 76/161,680 09/07/2004 2,882,104 76/169,258 09/07/2004 2,882,106 76/170,166 09/07/2004 2,882,108 76/171,881 09/07/2004 2,882,112 76/181,079 09/07/2004 2,882,122 76/190,406 09/07/2004 2,882,123 76/190,549 09/07/2004 2,882,124 76/191,004 09/07/2004 2,882,130 76/202,588 09/07/2004 2,882,133 76/203,557 09/07/2004 2,882,140 76/212,444 09/07/2004 2,882,146 76/217,779 09/07/2004 2,882,151 76/220,795 09/07/2004 2,882,152 76/222,853 09/07/2004 2,882,154 76/229,072 09/07/2004 2,882,155 76/229,638 09/07/2004 2,882,157 76/231,570 09/07/2004 2,882,160 76/238,525 09/07/2004 2,882,166 76/246,485 09/07/2004 2,882,170 76/250,106 09/07/2004 2,882,171 76/250,446 09/07/2004 2,882,172 76/250,447 09/07/2004 2,882,173 76/250,821 09/07/2004 2,882,174 76/252,282 09/07/2004 2,882,188 76/260,327 09/07/2004 2,880,630 76/277,541 09/07/2004 2,882,203 76/279,360 09/07/2004 2,882,206 76/281,136 09/07/2004 2,883,354 76/285,962 09/07/2004 2,882,217 76/295,892 09/07/2004 2,882,224 76/302,636 09/07/2004 2,882,228 76/304,274 09/07/2004 2,882,235 76/311,028 09/07/2004 2,882,237 76/311,537 09/07/2004 2,882,248 76/324,697 09/07/2004 2,880,645 76/325,871 09/07/2004 2,882,262 76/340,705 09/07/2004 2,882,268 76/346,420 09/07/2004 2,880,657 76/351,730 09/07/2004 2,882,278 76/354,470 09/07/2004 2,882,283 76/355,823 09/07/2004 2,880,659 76/358,282 09/07/2004 2,880,660 76/358,283 09/07/2004 2,882,288 76/358,452 09/07/2004 2,882,289 76/358,537 09/07/2004 2,880,668 76/366,095 09/07/2004 2,882,305 76/367,288 09/07/2004 2,882,311 76/371,189 09/07/2004 2,882,312 76/371,794 09/07/2004 2,882,326 76/375,829 09/07/2004 2,882,328 76/376,396 09/07/2004 2,882,335 76/382,138 09/07/2004 2,882,339 76/385,939 09/07/2004 2,882,342 76/386,521 09/07/2004 2,882,343 76/388,042 09/07/2004 2,882,347 76/391,313 09/07/2004 2,882,364 76/396,813 09/07/2004 2,882,370 76/399,086 09/07/2004 2,882,375 76/400,907 09/07/2004 2,882,379 76/402,555 09/07/2004 2,882,380 76/402,907 09/07/2004 2,882,382 76/403,198 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 41 

 2,882,387 76/406,872 09/07/2004 2,882,389 76/407,047 09/07/2004 2,880,698 76/408,640 09/07/2004 2,882,398 76/409,034 09/07/2004 2,882,405 76/410,891 09/07/2004 2,882,412 76/414,517 09/07/2004 2,882,413 76/415,155 09/07/2004 2,880,708 76/418,535 09/07/2004 2,882,440 76/426,510 09/07/2004 2,882,443 76/427,181 09/07/2004 2,882,445 76/428,347 09/07/2004 2,882,449 76/428,784 09/07/2004 2,880,719 76/430,691 09/07/2004 2,882,462 76/431,906 09/07/2004 2,882,468 76/435,237 09/07/2004 2,882,471 76/436,134 09/07/2004 2,882,478 76/437,633 09/07/2004 2,882,481 76/437,877 09/07/2004 2,883,362 76/439,478 09/07/2004 2,882,487 76/441,596 09/07/2004 2,882,488 76/441,598 09/07/2004 2,882,489 76/441,599 09/07/2004 2,882,490 76/441,871 09/07/2004 2,882,492 76/442,596 09/07/2004 2,882,494 76/443,063 09/07/2004 2,882,508 76/446,465 09/07/2004 2,882,512 76/447,709 09/07/2004 2,882,517 76/449,091 09/07/2004 2,882,523 76/450,695 09/07/2004 2,882,528 76/453,075 09/07/2004 2,882,530 76/453,433 09/07/2004 2,880,750 76/455,025 09/07/2004 2,880,751 76/456,044 09/07/2004 2,882,535 76/456,891 09/07/2004 2,882,536 76/457,263 09/07/2004 2,880,759 76/460,478 09/07/2004 2,882,549 76/461,694 09/07/2004 2,882,561 76/464,217 09/07/2004 2,880,769 76/464,350 09/07/2004 2,882,570 76/465,906 09/07/2004 2,882,571 76/466,081 09/07/2004 2,880,773 76/466,786 09/07/2004 2,883,367 76/466,894 09/07/2004 2,880,775 76/470,132 09/07/2004 2,882,577 76/470,781 09/07/2004 2,880,776 76/471,877 09/07/2004 2,882,584 76/473,126 09/07/2004 2,880,777 76/473,365 09/07/2004 2,882,592 76/476,344 09/07/2004 2,882,597 76/478,231 09/07/2004 2,882,601 76/478,781 09/07/2004 2,882,602 76/479,725 09/07/2004 2,880,793 76/480,558 09/07/2004 2,882,611 76/481,801 09/07/2004 2,882,612 76/481,977 09/07/2004 2,882,634 76/487,106 09/07/2004 2,882,635 76/487,156 09/07/2004 2,882,642 76/489,051 09/07/2004 2,882,648 76/491,360 09/07/2004 2,880,828 76/492,843 09/07/2004 2,880,836 76/494,189 09/07/2004 2,880,837 76/494,191 09/07/2004 2,880,838 76/494,235 09/07/2004 2,882,659 76/494,816 09/07/2004 2,880,845 76/495,796 09/07/2004 2,880,847 76/496,491 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 42 

 2,880,848 76/496,492 09/07/2004 2,880,849 76/496,493 09/07/2004 2,880,854 76/497,583 09/07/2004 2,880,856 76/497,714 09/07/2004 2,882,667 76/497,885 09/07/2004 2,882,670 76/498,475 09/07/2004 2,880,866 76/498,762 09/07/2004 2,880,868 76/499,163 09/07/2004 2,880,869 76/499,290 09/07/2004 2,880,872 76/499,570 09/07/2004 2,880,876 76/500,096 09/07/2004 2,880,878 76/500,201 09/07/2004 2,880,879 76/500,204 09/07/2004 2,880,882 76/500,349 09/07/2004 2,880,885 76/500,450 09/07/2004 2,880,892 76/501,303 09/07/2004 2,880,913 76/504,344 09/07/2004 2,880,933 76/506,205 09/07/2004 2,882,702 76/509,350 09/07/2004 2,880,940 76/509,797 09/07/2004 2,882,705 76/510,219 09/07/2004 2,880,951 76/511,478 09/07/2004 2,880,956 76/512,115 09/07/2004 2,880,966 76/513,780 09/07/2004 2,882,711 76/514,342 09/07/2004 2,883,375 76/514,442 09/07/2004 2,882,715 76/515,472 09/07/2004 2,882,723 76/516,581 09/07/2004 2,882,728 76/517,844 09/07/2004 2,882,730 76/518,511 09/07/2004 2,882,731 76/518,561 09/07/2004 2,882,732 76/519,076 09/07/2004 2,880,989 76/519,625 09/07/2004 2,881,003 76/523,741 09/07/2004 2,881,006 76/524,533 09/07/2004 2,881,008 76/524,626 09/07/2004 2,881,013 76/525,196 09/07/2004 2,881,022 76/528,000 09/07/2004 2,881,029 76/529,591 09/07/2004 2,881,034 76/530,446 09/07/2004 2,881,035 76/530,447 09/07/2004 2,881,044 76/532,952 09/07/2004 2,882,747 76/533,320 09/07/2004 2,881,050 76/534,719 09/07/2004 2,881,051 76/534,729 09/07/2004 2,881,056 76/535,604 09/07/2004 2,881,061 76/535,966 09/07/2004 2,881,063 76/536,040 09/07/2004 2,881,069 76/537,604 09/07/2004 2,881,070 76/537,656 09/07/2004 2,881,073 76/537,717 09/07/2004 2,883,382 76/539,384 09/07/2004 2,881,088 76/540,307 09/07/2004 2,881,092 76/540,985 09/07/2004 2,881,097 76/542,560 09/07/2004 2,883,383 76/542,754 09/07/2004 2,881,102 76/543,675 09/07/2004 2,881,118 76/544,745 09/07/2004 2,881,138 76/545,832 09/07/2004 2,881,139 76/545,833 09/07/2004 2,881,151 76/546,396 09/07/2004 2,881,158 76/546,774 09/07/2004 2,881,159 76/546,787 09/07/2004 2,881,160 76/546,788 09/07/2004 2,881,183 76/548,266 09/07/2004 2,881,189 76/548,671 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 43 

 2,881,192 76/548,837 09/07/2004 2,881,196 76/549,181 09/07/2004 2,881,197 76/549,182 09/07/2004 2,881,201 76/549,254 09/07/2004 2,881,212 76/549,999 09/07/2004 2,881,218 76/550,155 09/07/2004 2,881,226 76/550,539 09/07/2004 2,881,229 76/550,687 09/07/2004 2,881,231 76/550,911 09/07/2004 2,881,237 76/551,053 09/07/2004 2,881,239 76/551,074 09/07/2004 2,881,242 76/551,135 09/07/2004 2,881,245 76/551,400 09/07/2004 2,881,254 76/551,922 09/07/2004 2,881,260 76/552,394 09/07/2004 2,881,261 76/552,464 09/07/2004 2,881,267 76/553,086 09/07/2004 2,881,275 76/555,832 09/07/2004 2,881,277 76/556,103 09/07/2004 2,881,292 76/563,023 09/07/2004 2,881,294 76/576,807 09/07/2004 2,882,752 76/975,717 09/07/2004 2,882,756 76/976,632 09/07/2004 2,882,757 76/976,636 09/07/2004 2,882,768 76/976,813 09/07/2004 2,882,769 76/976,814 09/07/2004 2,882,770 76/976,815 09/07/2004 2,882,771 76/976,816 09/07/2004 2,882,772 76/976,817 09/07/2004 2,882,783 76/976,867 09/07/2004 2,881,303 78/009,742 09/07/2004 2,882,803 78/041,509 09/07/2004 2,882,807 78/047,697 09/07/2004 2,882,810 78/049,838 09/07/2004 2,882,811 78/050,715 09/07/2004 2,882,821 78/061,417 09/07/2004 2,882,823 78/063,105 09/07/2004 2,882,827 78/065,641 09/07/2004 2,882,831 78/073,328 09/07/2004 2,882,858 78/097,094 09/07/2004 2,882,859 78/097,705 09/07/2004 2,882,863 78/099,117 09/07/2004 2,882,864 78/099,494 09/07/2004 2,882,875 78/105,215 09/07/2004 2,882,887 78/111,885 09/07/2004 2,882,892 78/116,262 09/07/2004 2,882,896 78/116,999 09/07/2004 2,882,904 78/122,416 09/07/2004 2,882,908 78/125,326 09/07/2004 2,882,918 78/130,277 09/07/2004 2,882,921 78/133,083 09/07/2004 2,882,922 78/133,129 09/07/2004 2,882,938 78/139,074 09/07/2004 2,882,952 78/142,292 09/07/2004 2,882,992 78/156,996 09/07/2004 2,881,337 78/158,610 09/07/2004 2,883,008 78/167,396 09/07/2004 2,883,012 78/169,394 09/07/2004 2,883,016 78/170,224 09/07/2004 2,881,349 78/172,147 09/07/2004 2,883,025 78/175,301 09/07/2004 2,883,033 78/177,530 09/07/2004 2,883,037 78/179,148 09/07/2004 2,883,040 78/179,798 09/07/2004 2,883,042 78/180,084 09/07/2004 2,883,051 78/182,193 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 44 

 2,881,361 78/185,503 09/07/2004 2,883,063 78/188,412 09/07/2004 2,883,399 78/190,037 09/07/2004 2,883,068 78/190,180 09/07/2004 2,883,070 78/190,649 09/07/2004 2,883,075 78/191,862 09/07/2004 2,883,080 78/192,659 09/07/2004 2,883,081 78/192,900 09/07/2004 2,883,092 78/195,659 09/07/2004 2,883,093 78/196,368 09/07/2004 2,881,378 78/196,889 09/07/2004 2,883,116 78/201,378 09/07/2004 2,881,388 78/201,838 09/07/2004 2,883,121 78/202,585 09/07/2004 2,881,391 78/203,125 09/07/2004 2,883,403 78/204,328 09/07/2004 2,883,136 78/204,943 09/07/2004 2,883,137 78/205,162 09/07/2004 2,883,149 78/207,027 09/07/2004 2,883,156 78/207,653 09/07/2004 2,883,159 78/208,953 09/07/2004 2,883,160 78/209,092 09/07/2004 2,883,164 78/209,564 09/07/2004 2,883,173 78/210,705 09/07/2004 2,883,405 78/211,040 09/07/2004 2,883,178 78/211,103 09/07/2004 2,883,193 78/214,585 09/07/2004 2,883,203 78/216,316 09/07/2004 2,883,206 78/216,514 09/07/2004 2,881,413 78/216,980 09/07/2004 2,881,417 78/217,480 09/07/2004 2,883,215 78/219,254 09/07/2004 2,881,441 78/221,547 09/07/2004 2,881,445 78/223,059 09/07/2004 2,883,227 78/223,076 09/07/2004 2,881,447 78/224,104 09/07/2004 2,883,231 78/224,220 09/07/2004 2,881,453 78/225,261 09/07/2004 2,881,457 78/226,751 09/07/2004 2,881,461 78/227,531 09/07/2004 2,881,462 78/227,621 09/07/2004 2,881,467 78/228,620 09/07/2004 2,881,468 78/228,783 09/07/2004 2,881,471 78/229,198 09/07/2004 2,881,473 78/229,278 09/07/2004 2,881,480 78/230,452 09/07/2004 2,883,261 78/233,054 09/07/2004 2,881,495 78/233,645 09/07/2004 2,883,264 78/235,339 09/07/2004 2,883,265 78/235,900 09/07/2004 2,881,504 78/235,973 09/07/2004 2,881,506 78/236,298 09/07/2004 2,881,512 78/237,388 09/07/2004 2,883,273 78/239,470 09/07/2004 2,881,516 78/239,673 09/07/2004 2,881,518 78/240,776 09/07/2004 2,883,279 78/240,907 09/07/2004 2,883,280 78/240,911 09/07/2004 2,883,283 78/242,013 09/07/2004 2,881,523 78/242,237 09/07/2004 2,881,524 78/242,630 09/07/2004 2,883,286 78/242,911 09/07/2004 2,883,288 78/243,645 09/07/2004 2,881,526 78/243,774 09/07/2004 2,883,289 78/243,905 09/07/2004 2,881,527 78/243,940 09/07/2004
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 45 

 2,881,528 78/244,564 09/07/2004 2,883,290 78/244,928 09/07/2004 2,883,291 78/244,999 09/07/2004 2,883,292 78/245,789 09/07/2004 2,883,293 78/246,181 09/07/2004 2,881,538 78/247,098 09/07/2004 2,883,296 78/247,157 09/07/2004 2,883,302 78/250,254 09/07/2004 2,881,564 78/253,944 09/07/2004 2,881,569 78/254,997 09/07/2004 2,883,310 78/255,135 09/07/2004 2,881,570 78/255,154 09/07/2004 2,883,313 78/255,809 09/07/2004 2,881,573 78/257,042 09/07/2004 2,881,574 78/257,069 09/07/2004 2,883,323 78/257,761 09/07/2004 2,881,577 78/258,932 09/07/2004 2,881,579 78/259,083 09/07/2004 2,883,328 78/260,233 09/07/2004 2,881,587 78/260,619 09/07/2004 2,881,589 78/261,578 09/07/2004 2,883,333 78/261,792 09/07/2004 2,881,592 78/261,949 09/07/2004 2,881,595 78/263,218 09/07/2004 2,883,338 78/265,218 09/07/2004 2,881,605 78/266,019 09/07/2004 2,881,615 78/268,680 09/07/2004 2,881,617 78/268,892 09/07/2004 2,881,621 78/271,290 09/07/2004 2,881,623 78/271,694 09/07/2004 2,881,648 78/279,202 09/07/2004 2,881,651 78/280,346 09/07/2004 2,881,659 78/281,401 09/07/2004 2,881,664 78/283,473 09/07/2004 2,881,669 78/284,433 09/07/2004 2,881,677 78/286,142 09/07/2004 2,881,691 78/290,891 09/07/2004 2,881,692 78/290,926 09/07/2004 2,881,693 78/291,172 09/07/2004 2,881,696 78/292,312 09/07/2004 2,881,700 78/292,951 09/07/2004 2,881,702 78/293,600 09/07/2004 2,881,707 78/294,834 09/07/2004 2,881,724 78/297,869 09/07/2004 2,881,727 78/297,911 09/07/2004 2,881,729 78/298,001 09/07/2004 2,881,731 78/298,405 09/07/2004 2,881,732 78/298,427 09/07/2004 2,881,739 78/298,950 09/07/2004 2,881,749 78/299,897 09/07/2004 2,881,769 78/302,201 09/07/2004 2,881,778 78/303,541 09/07/2004 2,881,780 78/303,761 09/07/2004 2,881,787 78/304,315 09/07/2004 2,881,812 78/306,661 09/07/2004 2,881,827 78/308,014 09/07/2004 2,881,829 78/308,100 09/07/2004 2,881,831 78/308,347 09/07/2004 2,881,833 78/308,480 09/07/2004 2,881,853 78/312,645 09/07/2004 2,881,854 78/312,650 09/07/2004 2,881,870 78/317,103 09/07/2004 2,881,882 78/326,796 09/07/2004 2,883,342 78/975,359 09/07/2004 2,883,346 78/975,486 09/07/2004 2,883,349 78/975,494 09/07/2004 994,011 72/454,077 09/24/1974 1,294,756 73/429,027 09/11/1984 1,853,944 74/160,762 09/13/1994
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 46 

Service by Publication
 Service by Publication A notice of opposition to the registration of the mark in the application identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to applicant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the applicant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the opposition will proceed as in the case of default. Alam Khurshid, Sarasota, FL, Application Serial No. 86145434 for the mark "HUM SAB SE UMEED SE HAIN", Opposition No. 91219144. ROCHELLE ADAMS Paralegal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A notice of opposition to the registration of the mark in the application identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to applicant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the applicant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the opposition will proceed as in the case of default. Equilibrium Brewery, Rock Hill, New York, Application Serial No. 86354292 for the mark "PHOTON", Opposition No. 91220704. ELLEN M. YOWELL Paralegal Specialist Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. Pawier, Inc., Wallace, CA, Registration No. 3893899 for the mark "EXTEND LIFE", Cancellation No. 92060500. Smokerslifechange LLC, Bountiful, Utah, Registration No. 3853318 for the mark "EDGE", Cancellation No. 92060807. ELLEN M. YOWELL Paralegal Specialist Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 47 

 A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. Kurt Gutmann Jewelry, Inc., Newtown, PA, Registration No. 1594130 for the mark "KG", Cancellation No. 92060819. KARL KOCHERSPERGER Paralegal Specialist Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. Ed McNamee and Gloria McNamee, Costa Mesa, CA, Registration No. 3993704 for the mark "A WINK AND A DRINK", Cancellation No. 92060839. ROCHELLE ADAMS Paralegal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. Bloodsport Gear, LLC, Mesa, AZ, Registration No. 3666204 for the mark "BLOODSPORT GEAR B", Cancellation No. 92060850. AMY MATELSKI Paralegal Specialist Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 48 

 default. Duck Fireworks & Firecracker Factory, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, Registration No. 3594648 for the mark "DUCK BRAND", Cancellation No. 92060886. VERONICA WHITE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. D.S.D.A., Metuchen, NJ, Registration No. 1377457 for the mark "DALI-FRESH", Cancellation No. 92060897. MILLICENT CANADY Paralegal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks Service by Publication A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.1 Masterpiece Solutions Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Registration No. 3839927 for the mark "SWEET FEET", Cancellation No. 92060961. MONIQUE TYSON Paralegal Specialist Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for MARY BONEY DENISON Commissioner for Trademarks 1 Petitioner's communication in reference to undeliverable mail filed March 25, 2015 is noted.
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 49 

37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
 37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor, James FRIEND. The inventor whose signature is missing may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/AU2012/000732 and was filed 22 June 2012 in the names of James FRIEND, Leslie Yu-Ming YEO, Peggy CHAN, Nicholas GLASS, and Richard SHELTON for the invention entitled CENTRIFUGAL MICROFLUIDIC DEVICE. The national stage number is 14/363,163 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 02 April 2015.
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 50 

Registration to Practice
 Registration to Practice The following list contains the names of persons seeking for registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Final approval for registration is subject to establishing to the satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline that the person seeking registration is of good moral character and repute. 37 CFR § 11.7 Accordingly, any information tending to affect the eligibility of any of the following persons on moral ethical or other grounds should be furnished to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on or before May 22, 2015 at the following address: Mail Stop OED United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314 Bolland, Jeffrey Robert, 3460 14th Street NW, Washington DC 20010 Boothe, Norris Power, 2257 Laurel Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Bulyk, Yaroslaw Emilian, 136 Johns Road, Cheltenham, PA 19012 Desai, Anish Rohit, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, 1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Fernandez, Roberto Javier, 734 W Colfax Avenue, Unit 3, South Bend, IN 46601 Fernando, Joseph John Ravindra, 1217 Black Oak Drive, South Bend, IN 46617 Florkowski, William Gary, 3535 Roswell Road, NE Apartment E3, Atlanta, GA 30305 Gomez, Juan, 1304 Mariposa Drive, Apartment 164, Austin, TX 78704 Griggs, Divyata Kakumanu, Palo Alto Research Center, 2906 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Guntaka, Raman Reddy, 39 Buckland Street, Apt # 1421-1, Manchester, CT 06042 Jeong, Soyeon, 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 Kalin, Nicholas Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20593-7714 Kim, Byoung Woo, Global OLED Technology LLC, 13873 Park Center Road, Suite 330, Herndon, VA 20171 Lu, Wei Yo, 887 Franklin Street, Apartment 6, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Matsuura, Shinzo, Denso International America, Inc., 24777 Denso Drive, Southfield, MI 48033 Pemberton, Christine Charlotte, 240 Camp Street, Apartment 3, Providence, RI 02906 Proujansky-Bell, Jonah, P.O. Box 3183, Alviso, CA 95002 Reyna, Braxton Humberto, 9505 Pleasant Hill Church Road, Liberty, NC 27298 Rodriguez, Roberto, Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard, 15th Floor, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Rowland, Clarence Andrew, Sidley Austin, LLP, 555 W Fifth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 51 

 Sarpu, Bridget Ann, 1 Allen Road #2, Brighton, MA 02135 Scharf, Sara Rose, 3615 Caminito Carmel Landing, San Diego, CA 92130 Spexarth, Kevin Jeff, Andrus Intellectual Property Law, 100 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, WI 53202 Wheeler, Andrea Marie, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, 198 Champion Court, San Jose, CA 95134 Zhang, Ying, Georgia Institute of Technology, 3921 Emerson Street, Marietta, GA 30062 April 8, 2015 WILLIAM R. COVEY Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 52 

Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Deposit Account Replenishments
 Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Deposit Account Replenishments Beginning on June 1, 2015, checks and money orders that are sent by U.S. Postal Service first-class mail to replenish a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) deposit account should be mailed to: Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Attn: Deposit Accounts, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. Checks and money orders received at the lockbox address (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 979065, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000) will be forwarded to the Alexandria, VA address through November 30, 2015. Checks and money orders received at the lockbox address after November 30, 2015 will be returned to the sender. Payments to replenish deposit accounts submitted via electronic funds transfer (EFT) over the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov are not affected by the change to the mailing address. An EFT user account must have been established to use this option. Questions regarding deposit accounts or EFT user accounts should be directed to the Deposit Account Branch at (571) 272-6500. Questions regarding this notice should be forwarded to Matthew Lee, Director of the Receipts Accounting Division, Office of Finance, by e-mail at matthew.lee@uspto.gov. MARK KRIEGER Director, Office of Finance
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 53 

Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Patent Maintenance Fee Payments
 Change of Mailing Address for Submitting Patent Maintenance Fee Payments Beginning on June 1, 2015, payments and correspondence that are sent by U.S. Postal Service first-class mail to pay a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent maintenance fee should be mailed to: Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Attn: Maintenance Fees, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. Patent maintenance fee payments and correspondence received at the lockbox address (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000) will be forwarded to the Alexandria, VA address through November 30, 2015. Payments and correspondence received at the lockbox address after November 30, 2015 will be returned to the sender. Patent maintenance fee payments submitted over the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov using the credit card, USPTO deposit account, and electronic funds transfer (EFT) payment methods are not affected by the change to the mailing address. Questions regarding patent maintenance fees should be directed to the Maintenance Fee Branch at (571) 272-6500. Questions regarding this notice should be forwarded to Matthew Lee, Director of the Receipts Accounting Division, Office of Finance, by e-mail at matthew.lee@uspto.gov. MARK KRIEGER Director, Office of Finance
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 54 

Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check
 Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check Beginning on May 11, 2015, checks sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will be converted into an electronic funds transfer (EFT). This means your check will be imaged and the account information will be used to electronically debit your account for the amount of the check. The debit from your account will usually occur within 24 hours, and will be shown on your regular account statement. You will not receive your original check back. Your original check will be destroyed and a copy will be maintained on file. If the EFT cannot be processed for technical reasons, the copy will be processed in place of your original check. If the EFT cannot be completed because of insufficient funds, the transfer may be attempted up to two times. The USPTO is providing information required by the U.S. Department of the Treasury as follows: - When you provide a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your check to make a one-time electronic funds transfer from your account or to process the payment as a check transaction. - Privacy Act - A Privacy Act Statement required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)(3) stating our authority for soliciting and collecting the information from your check, and explaining the purposes and routine uses which will be made of your check information, is available from our Internet site at (http://www.fms.treas.gov/otcnet/index.html), or call toll free at (1-866-945-7920) to obtain a copy by mail. Furnishing the check information is voluntary, but a decision not to do so may require you to make payment by some other method. Questions regarding this notice should be forwarded to Matthew Lee, Director of the Receipts Accounting Division, Office of Finance, by e-mail at matthew.lee@uspto.gov. MARK KRIEGER Director, Office of Finance
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 55 

Notices of Suspension
 Notice of Suspension This Notice concerns Michael G. McCoy of Hazard, Kentucky, who is authorized to practice before the Office in trademark and non-patent matters. In a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 11.24, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has ordered that Mr. McCoy be suspended from practice before the USPTO in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters for a period of ten (10) years for violating 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(h) based on having been suspended from the practice of law on ethical grounds by a duly constituted authority of a State. Mr. McCoy is eligible to request reinstatement after serving two (2) years of the ten (10) year suspension subject to certain conditions and, if reinstated, Mr. McCoy will be permitted to practice before the Office unless the stay of any remaining portion of his suspension is subsequently lifted. Mr. McCoy is not authorized to practice before the Office in patent matters. Om March 10, 2014, the State Bar of Texas suspended Mr. McCoy for a period of ten (10) years for conduct that violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(1). Mr. McCoy agreed to assist a client with a prior art search and file a patent application on the client's behalf. He was paid $10,250.00 for prepayment of the expenses. The State Bar of Texas found that Mr. McCoy did not hold the funds paid by his client separate from his own property and did not provide the client with an accounting or a copy of the client's file. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2) (D) and 32 and 37 C.F.R. § 11.24 and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions are available for public review at the Office of Enrollment and Discipline's Reading Room available at: http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp. March 17, 2015 JAMES O. PAYNE Deputy General Counsel for General Law United States Patent and Trademark Office on behalf of MICHELLE LEE Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Notice of Suspension This notice concerns Quincy J. Nguyen of Covina, California, a registered patent agent (Registration Number 67,701) who is currently admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office"). Mr. Nguyen has never been admitted to the bar of any state. The USPTO Director has suspended Mr. Nguyen for a period of eighteen (18) months. In addition, Respondent must retake the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, achieve a scaled score equal to or greater than 85, and present the results to OED as a condition of reinstatement. Mr. Nguyen submitted his Application for Registration to the USPTO in 2010 ("Application"). In the Application, Mr. Nguyen falsely answered four of the questions. Mr. Nguyen did not disclose in the responses to those questions that in 2007, a California court found that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Nguyen was admitted as a patent agent in 2011. In January 2014, Mr. Nguyen wrote to the OED and disclosed for the first time that a California court found that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Mr. Nguyen and the OED Director pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D)
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 56 

 and 32 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, 11.26, and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions involving practitioners are posted at OED's electronic FOIA Reading Room, which is publicly accessible through the Office's website at: http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp. April 9, 2015 JAMES O. PAYNE Deputy General Counsel for General Law United States Patent and Trademark Office on behalf of MICHELLE K. LEE Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 57 

Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2014-0023] RIN 0651-AC96 Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Novartis AG v. Lee. The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period of application pendency exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. Accordingly, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance. The Office also is revising the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment. The Office is providing an exception to this patent term adjustment reduction provision for a request for continued examination filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication. Additionally, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application. DATES: Effective date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule are effective on January 9, 2015, and the changes to 37 CFR 1.704 in this final rule are effective on March 10, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.703 in this final rule apply to any patent granted before, on, or after January 9, 2015. 37 CFR 1.704 as adopted in this final rule applies to all original applications (other than for a design patent) filed on or after May 29, 2000, and to patents issued on such applications, except that 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) as adopted in this final rule applies only to applications in which a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) and 37 CFR 1.114 is filed on or after March 10, 2015, and 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13) as adopted in this final rule applies only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kery Fries, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, at telephone number 571- 272-7757. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary: Purpose: The Office is
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 58 

 revising the rules of practice pertaining to the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) in view of the decision by the Federal Circuit in Novartis, 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period defined in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. This final rule follows the Office's earlier proposal to change the rules of practice in view of the Federal Circuit's decision in Novartis. See Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in view of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee, 79 FR 34681 (June 18, 2014) (Novartis notice of proposed rulemaking). Summary of Major Provisions: The Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after the mailing date of a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after such allowance. The Office also is revising the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment. The Office is providing an exception to this patent term adjustment reduction provision for a request for continued examination filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication. Additionally, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application. Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). Background: Section 532(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act or URAA (Pub. L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994)) amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to provide that the term of a patent ends on the date that is twenty years from the filing date of the application, or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). The URAA also contained provisions, codified at 35 U.S.C. 154(b), for patent term extension due to certain examination delays. Under the patent term extension provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) as amended by the URAA, an applicant is entitled to patent term extension for delays due to interference (which has since been replaced by derivation), secrecy order, or successful appellate review. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b) (1995). The Office implemented the patent term extension provisions of the URAA in a final rule published in April of 1995. See Changes to Implement 20- Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 FR 20195 (Apr. 25, 1995) (twenty-year patent term final rule). The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 or AIPA (Pub. L. 106- 113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552 through 1501A-591 (1999)) further amended 35 U.S.C. 154(b) to include additional bases for patent term extension (characterized as "patent term adjustment" in the AIPA). Original utility and plant patents issuing from applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, may be eligible for patent term adjustment if issuance of the patent is delayed due to one or more of the enumerated administrative delays listed in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1). Specifically, under the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) as amended by the AIPA, an applicant is entitled to patent term adjustment for the following reasons: (1) If the Office fails to take certain actions during the examination and issue process within specified time frames (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)); (2) if the Office fails to issue a patent within three years of the actual filing date of the application
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 59 

 (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)); and (3) for delays due to interference (and now derivation), secrecy order, or successful appellate review (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C)). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1). The AIPA, however, sets forth a number of conditions and limitations on any patent term adjustment accrued under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1). Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C) provides, in part, that "[t]he period of adjustment of the term of a patent under [35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)] shall be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application" and that "[t]he Director shall prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application." 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i) and (iii). The Office implemented the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) as amended by the AIPA, including setting forth circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application, in a final rule published in September of 2000. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR 56365 (Sept. 18, 2000) (AIPA patent term adjustment final rule). In January 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Novartis pertaining to the patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b), and specifically the impact of continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) on patent term adjustment under the three-year pendency provision of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B). The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period defined in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was initiated. See 740 F.3d at 601 ("[t]he better reading of the language is that the patent term adjustment time should be calculated by determining the length of the time between application and patent issuance, then subtracting any continued examination time (and other time identified in (i), (ii), and (iii) of [35 U.S.C. 154](b)(1)(B)), and determining the extent to which the result exceeds three years"). The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. See 740 F.3d at 602 ("[t]he common-sense understanding of `time consumed by continued examination,' 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i), is time up to allowance, but not later, unless examination on the merits resumes"). Therefore, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after the mailing date of a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance. The Office makes the patent term adjustment determination indicated in the patent by a computer program that uses the information recorded in the Office's Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system (except when an applicant requests reconsideration pursuant to § 1.705). See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56381 (response to comment 25). The decision in Novartis that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance required a modification of the Office's patent term adjustment program. The modification of the Office's patent term adjustment program required by the decision in Novartis has now been completed, and the patent term adjustment determinations in patents issued on or after October 7, 2014 are consistent with the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis and this final rule. The Office calculates the patent term adjustment manually when an applicant requests reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.705. The Office has been deciding requests for
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 60 

 reconsideration of a patent term adjustment filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.705 consistent with the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis since January 15, 2014 (the date the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Novartis). Nothing in this final rule shall be construed as a waiver of: (1) The requirement of 37 CFR 1.705(b) that any request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent must be by way of an application for patent term adjustment filed no later than two months from the date the patent was granted (which two-month period may be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a)), and be accompanied by the items specified in 37 CFR 1.705(b)(1) and (b)(2); or (2) the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4) that an applicant dissatisfied with the Director's decision on the applicant's request for reconsideration under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(B)(ii) shall have exclusive remedy by a civil action against the Director filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia within 180 days after the date of the Director's decision on the applicant's request for reconsideration under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(B)(ii). In other words, nothing in this final rule excuses patentees from having to meet the time limitations set forth in 37 CFR 1.705 or 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4) in effect at the time of the patent's issuance in order to challenge any patent term adjustment under 37 CFR 1.702 et seq. regarding the issues addressed in this final rule. As discussed previously, the patent term adjustment statutory provision also includes the provision that "[t]he period of adjustment of the term of a patent under [35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)] shall be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application," and that "[t]he Director shall prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application." See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i) and (iii). Under the authority provided in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii), the Office is revising the rules of practice to establish that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed constitutes a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. This provision has been adopted to ensure that an applicant does not obtain additional patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) for the time after a notice of allowance has been mailed as a consequence of delaying issuance of the patent by filing a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after a notice of allowance has been mailed. Discussion of Specific Rules The following is a discussion of amendments to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1: Section 1.703: Section 1.703(b)(1) is amended to provide that the time consumed by continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is the number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the date on which any request for continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151. If a first request for continued examination is filed before a notice of allowance has been mailed and a second request for continued examination is filed after a notice of allowance has been mailed, the time consumed by continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is the number of days in the period beginning on the date on which the first request for continued examination was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance following the first request for continued examination, plus the number of days in the period beginning on the date on which the second request for continued examination was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance following the second request for continued examination. If a second request for continued examination is filed without a notice of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 61 

 allowance having been mailed between the filing of the first and second requests for continued examination and a notice of allowance is mailed after the second request for continued examination, the time consumed by continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is the number of days in the period beginning on the date on which the first request for continued examination was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance. Section 1.704: Section 1.704(c)(10) is amended to change "other paper" to "other paper, other than a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114," to clarify that the filing of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) in compliance with § 1.114 is treated under § 1.704(c)(12) rather than § 1.704(c)(10). Section 1.704(c)(12) is amended to include a new provision that establishes the submission of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after any notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed as constituting a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be reduced by the number of days, if any, beginning on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 and ending on the date the request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was filed. As discussed previously, this provision has been adopted to ensure that an applicant does not obtain additional patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) for the time after a notice of allowance has been mailed as a consequence of delaying issuance of the patent by filing a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after a notice of allowance has been mailed. Moreover, the filing of a request for continued examination after the mailing of a notice of allowance removes the application from the issue process, prevents the Office from issuing the patent, and requires the Office to determine if the submission affects the patentability of the application, which adds to the pendency of the application in which the request for continued examination is filed (as well as other applications since examination resources must be diverted from other applications to the application in which the request for continued examination is filed). Section 1.704(c)(13) is amended and § 1.704(c)(14) is added to include the provisions of §§ 1.704(c)(12) and (c)(13), respectively. Section 1.704(d) is amended to also provide that a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114 with submission of only an information disclosure statement in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under § 1.704(c)(12), if the request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is accompanied by the statement provided for in § 1.704(d). The Office has a pilot program that reduces the need for processing a request for continued examination with an information disclosure statement filed after payment of the issue fee in order for the information disclosure statement to be considered by the examiner. See Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Pilot Program, 77 FR 27443 (May 10, 2012). Applicants are encouraged to use the QPIDS program when submitting an information disclosure statement after payment of the issue fee, but an applicant may file a request for continued examination with an information disclosure statement and statement under § 1.704(d) without submitting the request for continued examination and information disclosure statement via the QPIDS program. An applicant submitting an information disclosure statement filed after payment of the issue fee via the QPIDS program should also include the statement under § 1.704(d) (if appropriate) with the conditional request for continued examination submitted in accordance with the QPIDS program. Comments and Responses to Comments: The Office received eight written comments from intellectual property organizations, industry, a law firm, individual patent practitioners, and the general public in
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 62 

 response to the Novartis notice of proposed rulemaking. The comments and the Office's responses to those comments follow: Comment 1: Several comments suggest that "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) does not include the date of mailing of a notice of allowance, citing Novartis, 740 F.3d at 601 et seq. Response: The Federal Circuit decision in Novartis does not specifically state whether the date of mailing of a notice of allowance is considered part of the "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i). The Federal Circuit decision in Novartis simply discusses the time period "before allowance" and the "time after allowance, until issuance." See Novartis, 740 F.3d at 602 ("we reject the PTO's view that the time after allowance, until issuance, is `time consumed by continued examination' " and " `time consumed by continued examination' . . . is time up to allowance, but not later") (emphasis added). The mailing of the notice of allowance is the action which concludes examination of the application and closes prosecution of the application. See id. ("examination' presumptively ends at allowance, when prosecution is closed and there is no further examination on the merits. . . .") (emphasis added). Thus, it is appropriate to consider the "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" as including the date of mailing of the notice of allowance in an application that has been allowed after the filing of a request for continued examination. In addition, treating the period of "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" as ending on the date on which a notice of allowance is mailed (rather than the day before the date on which a notice of allowance is mailed) is consistent with how the Office treats the date on which a patent issues for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(iv) (four months to issue patent term adjustment provision) and 154(b)(1)(B) (the three- year pendency patent term adjustment provision). Specifically, the Office treats the four-month period in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(iv) and the three-year period in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) as ending on the date the patent issues (rather than day before date the patent issues), even though the patent has been granted and is in force on the date the patent issues. Comment 2: Several comments oppose the provision in proposed § 1.703(b)(1) that if prosecution in the application is reopened, the period under § 1.702(b) does not include the period between the reopening of prosecution and the date of mailing of a subsequent notice of allowance. The comments suggest that the period under § 1.702(b) should include any period of post-allowance examination unless the reopening of prosecution is in response to a request for continued examination, or at least that the period of adjustment under § 1.702(b) should include any period of post-allowance examination due to the Office sua sponte reopening prosecution. Response: Section 1.703(b)(1) as adopted in this final rule provides that the time consumed by continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) is the number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the date on which any request for continued examination of the application under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151. Thus, any period of examination after the mailing of a notice of allowance resulting from the filing of a subsequent request for continued examination would be considered "time consumed by continued examination," but a period of examination after the mailing of a notice of allowance resulting from the Office sua sponte reopening prosecution would not be considered "time consumed by continued examination" (unless the applicant subsequently files a request for continued examination). Comment 3: One comment suggests that there is no basis for treating a second or subsequent request for continued examination after a notice
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 63 

 of allowance as "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)," arguing that the Novartis court did not consider second or third requests for continued examination to be continued examination. The comment alternatively suggests that a second or subsequent request for continued examination after a notice of allowance should not be treated as "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" unless the request for continued examination results in the mailing of an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132. One comment states that it is not clear why "time consumed by continued examination" is defined in such a way as to include non-contiguous periods of exclusion in certain circumstances where prosecution is reopened. Response: 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) provides that the period under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) does not include "any time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" (emphasis added). There is no basis for treating a second or subsequent request for continued examination differently than the first request for continued examination with respect to period between the filing of the request for continued examination and a notice of allowance being considered "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)." The Federal Circuit decision in Novartis did not state that this time "consumed by continued examination of the application" under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) includes only the time consumed by a first request for continued examination, or includes the time consumed by a request for continued examination only if the Office issues an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132. Treating a second or subsequent request for continued examination as not being "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" unless the Office issues an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 in response to the request for continued examination would not be consistent with the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. 131, 132, and 151. 35 U.S.C. 131 provides for examination of patent applications, specifically stating that "[t]he Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor." 35 U.S.C. 131. Thus, examination has two possible outcomes: Namely, if "on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law," the Office issues a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151; however, if "on such examination" it does not appear that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Office issues a notice (Office action) under 35 U.S.C. 132 specifying the reasons why it does not appear that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ("Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application"). Thus, the time period between a request for continued examination and a notice of allowance is "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" regardless of whether the Office issues an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132. Finally, § 1.703(b)(1) as adopted in this final rule does not "define" "time consumed by continued examination" as generally or necessarily including non-contiguous periods. The "time consumed by continued examination" as measured by § 1.703(b)(1) will include non-contiguous periods if the applicant files a request for continued examination after a notice of allowance is mailed because the "time consumed by continued examination" includes non-contiguous periods if the applicant files a request for continued examination after a notice of allowance is mailed. Comment 4: One comment questions how an application will be treated
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 64 

 when multiple consecutive notices of allowance (e.g., a notice of allowance and then a supplemental notice of allowance) are mailed. Response: The Office issues a notice of allowability (PTOL-37) and a notice of allowance (PTOL-85) when an application is in condition for allowance. The Office rarely issues multiple consecutive notices of allowance (PTOL-85) (e.g., a notice of allowance and then a supplemental notice of allowance). In the rare situation in which the Office issues multiple consecutive notices of allowance (PTOL-85), the "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" is the number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the date on which a request for continued examination was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the first notice of allowance (PTOL-85). The Office does occasionally mail or issue multiple consecutive notices of allowability (PTOL-37) (e.g., a notice of allowability and then a supplemental notice of allowability). In these situations, the "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" is the number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the date on which a request for continued examination was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance (PTOL-85), regardless of whether the notice of allowability (PTOL-37) and notice of allowance (PTOL-85) are mailed or issued on different days, and also regardless of whether the Office has issued multiple consecutive notices of allowability (PTOL-37). Comment 5: Several comments oppose the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) stating that applicants must file a request for continued examination when they become aware of prior art after allowance that must be submitted to the Office to comply with § 1.56. The comments further state that applicants often cannot make the statement required by § 1.97(e), and that the QPIDS program is a pilot program and thus there is no certainty that it will continue. One comment further states that an applicant who may be able to make the statement required by § 1.704(d) does not necessarily have the option of filing an information disclosure statement after allowance without filing a request for continued examination, and suggests that the Office apply the "safe harbor" provision under § 1.704(d) to proposed § 1.704(c)(12). One comment suggests that the Office should make the QPIDS pilot program permanent, and one comment suggests that the Office should provide for the filing of an information disclosure statement after payment of the issue fee without the need for filing of a request for continued examination. Response: As discussed previously, the mailing of a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 concludes the examination process and starts the process of preparing the application for issuance as a patent. The AIPA patent term adjustment final rule defined the submission of an amendment under § 1.312 or other paper (which would include a request for continued examination) after a notice of allowance has been given or mailed as a circumstance that constitutes a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application (codified in § 1.704(c) (10)) because the submission of amendments (or other papers) after an application is allowed causes substantial interference with the patent issue process. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56373 (discussion of § 1.704(c)(10)). The filing of a request for continued examination after the mailing of a notice of allowance removes the application from the issue process, prevents the Office from issuing the patent, and requires the Office to determine if the submission affects the patentability of the application, which adds to the pendency of the application in which the request for continued examination is filed (as well as other applications since examination resources must be diverted from other applications to the application in which the request for continued examination is filed). As further indicated in the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule, "[a]n applicant who is engaging in actions or inactions that prevent or interfere with the Office's ability to process or examine an application cannot reasonably be
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 65 

 characterized as `engag[ing] in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application' (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i))." See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56379 (response to comment 17). Therefore, the Office considers it appropriate to expressly define the filing of a request for continued examination after the mailing of any notice of allowance as a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii) (provides for the Office to prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application). Nevertheless, the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule also indicates that the Office considers it appropriate to permit applicants to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application to the Office without a reduction in patent term adjustment if an information disclosure statement is submitted to the Office within thirty days (not three months) of the date the patent office communication was received by an individual designated in § 1.56(c). See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty- Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56385 (response to comment 36). Section 1.704(d) was thus adopted in the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule to permit applicants to file an information disclosure statement promptly without a reduction of patent term adjustment. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56373 (discussion of § 1.704(d)). The Office is therefore revising § 1.704(d) in this final rule to provide that a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114 with no submission other than an information disclosure statement in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under § 1.704(c)(12), if the request for continued examination is accompanied by a statement in compliance with § 1.704(d). With respect to the suggestions that the Office make the QPIDS pilot program permanent and provide for the filing of an information disclosure statement after payment of the issue fee without the need for filing of a request for continued examination, the Office is currently studying the results of the QPIDS pilot program and other mechanisms for considering information disclosure statements submitted after payment of the issue fee. Comment 6: Several comments state that the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) should apply only when there is patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) (under the "B" provision), and should not apply to patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) or 154(b)(1)(C) (under the "A" or "C" provision). One comment states that 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) applies only to patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B), and thus applicant delays that may be deducted from the total patent term adjustment are only those that occur at the same time that Office delays would otherwise be included in the calculation of patent term adjustment. The comment suggests that § 1.704(b) should be revised to indicate that patent term adjustment is not reduced by applicant delays arising after the filing of a request for continued examination, since 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) applies only to patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B). Response: The current provisions of § 1.704(b) were adopted in the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56370-71 and 56393 (discussion of § 1.704(b) and § 1.704(b)). The Office did not propose any amendment to § 1.704(b) in the Novartis notice of proposed rulemaking. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(C)(ii) provides that, with respect to adjustments to patent term made under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B), an applicant shall be deemed to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application for the cumulative total of any periods of time in excess
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 66 

 of three months that are taken to respond to a notice from the Office making any rejection, objection, argument, or other request. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(C)(iii), however, further provides that the Office shall prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. Thus, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) cannot be considered exhaustive of the circumstances for which an applicant may be determined to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56381 (response to comment 28). Under the authority in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii), § 1.704(b) as adopted in the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule established failure to respond to a notice from the Office making any rejection, objection, argument, or other request within three months as a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application with respect to patent term adjustment under §§ 1.702(a) through (e) (corresponding to the grounds for patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) through (C)). See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56370 (discussion of § 1.704(b)). 35 U.S.C. 154(b) provides that the period of patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1) "shall be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application." See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i). 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C)(i) does not require the applicant's action or inaction (that amounts to a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application) to have caused or contributed to patent term adjustment for the period of adjustment to be reduced due to such action or inaction. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56379 (response to comment 18). The patent term adjustment provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) create a balanced system allowing for patent term adjustment due to Office delays for a reasonably diligent applicant. Id. Since the public has an interest in the technology disclosed and covered by a patent being available to the public at the earliest possible date, it is appropriate to reduce patent term adjustment by any period of time during which applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application, regardless of whether the applicant's actions or inactions caused or contributed to patent term adjustment. Id. Comment 7: One comment opposes the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) stating that the proposed rule undermines the three-month statutory period applicant has to review the application and pay the issue fee, and is inconsistent with the "deduction free" three-month response periods permitted in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii). Response: 35 U.S.C. 151 provides a three-month period for an applicant to pay the issue fee (or permit an application to become abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee). That applicants also use this three-month period for other purposes does not mean that the three-month period in 35 U.S.C. 151 is designed for those purposes. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) does not provide "deduction free" three-month response periods, but rather defines a failure to reply to any Office action or notice within three months as a per se failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application (subject to reinstatement under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C)). See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56389 (response to comment 51). As discussed previously, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii) authorizes (or requires) the Office to prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. In any event, a request for continued examination is not, strictly speaking, a "response" to a notice of allowance. See 35 U.S.C. 151 ("The notice [of allowance] shall specify a sum, constituting the issue fee and any required publication fee, which
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 67 

 shall be paid within 3 months thereafter. . . . Upon payment of this sum, the patent may issue, but if payment is not timely made, the application shall be regarded as abandoned."). Comment 8: One comment opposing the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) states that proposed § 1.704(c)(12) is unnecessary as multiple requests for continued examination are filed in only a low percentage of applications, and that applicants have a "legal right" to file multiple requests for continued examination. The comment further states that proposed § 1.704(c)(12) is unwarranted as it treats requests for continued examination filed after allowance differently from requests for continued examination filed prior to allowance. Response: Section 1.114 currently permits applicants to file multiple requests for continued examination and requests for continued examination after a notice of allowance has been mailed. See Request for Continued Examination Practice and Changes to Provisional Application Practice, 65 FR 50092, 50095-96 (Aug. 16, 2000) (comparing the request for continued examination practice as implemented in § 1.114 with the transitional procedure in § 1.129(a)). There is, however, a distinction between permitting an applicant to take an action (or engage in an inaction) and treating that action or inaction as not being failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56379 (response to comment 17) (that conduct is permitted by the rules of practice does not imply that such conduct is not a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application); see also Changes to Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62384-85 (Oct. 21, 2013) (revising patent term adjustment provisions to define delays newly permitted by the Patent Law Treaty and Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (2012)) as a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application). In addition, while multiple requests for continued examination are filed in a relatively low percentage of applications, even a low percentage of activity represents thousands of applications (and patents) in view of the number of applications filed in the Office each year. In any event, that only a few applicants engage in actions or inactions that are a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application does not justify excusing such applicants from the patent term adjustment consequences of their actions or inactions. Finally, requests for continued examination filed after allowance are treated differently from requests for continued examination filed prior to allowance because applications in which a notice of allowance has been mailed are ready to be issued as a patent (subject to the applicant paying the issue fee in a timely manner). As discussed previously, the filing of a request for continued examination after the mailing of a notice of allowance removes the application from the issue process and prevents the Office from issuing the patent, which adds to the pendency of the application as well as the pendency of other applications since examination resources must be diverted from other applications to the application in which the request for continued examination was filed after a notice of allowance was filed. Comment 9: One comment opposing the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c) (12) states that requests for the Office to correct matters in a notice of allowability (such as an error in the claims or the failure of the Office to provide an initialed copy of an information disclosure statement) or to respond to an amendment under § 1.312 before payment of the issue fee should not be held against applicant if applicant files a request for continued examination to have such addressed. Response: A request for continued examination should never be filed simply to obtain correction of a notice of allowability or a response to an amendment under § 1.312. An applicant may simply call the examiner to obtain the correction (such as a supplemental notice of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 68 

 allowability correctly indicating the allowed claims or an initialed copy of an information disclosure statement) or a response to the amendment under § 1.312 (or call the supervisory patent examiner or technology center director if the call to the examiner is unavailing). Applicants should note that filing an amendment under § 1.312 is defined as a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application, and will result in a reduction of any patent term adjustment, under § 1.704(c)(10). Comment 10: One comment opposing the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) states that the filing of a request for continued examination is already a "reduction" from any patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) (the "B" provision) and would now be an additional reduction of patent term adjustment under § 1.704(c)(12). Response: The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) through (iii) are not a "reduction" of patent term adjustment. Rather, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) through (iii) simply define periods that are not included in determining whether and by how much the pendency of an application has exceeded the three-year period specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B). Under §§ 1.703 and 1.704 as adopted in this final rule, if a request for continued examination is filed after any notice of allowance was mailed, any patent term adjustment would be reduced by the number of days in the period starting on the day after the date of mailing of the notice of allowance and ending on the date the request for continued examination was filed as provided in § 1.704(c)(12), and the period between the date the request for continued examination was filed and the date of mailing of the subsequent notice of allowance would not be included in determining whether and by how much the pendency of an application has exceeded the three-year period specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B). Comment 11: One comment opposing the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) states that proposed § 1.704 is unclear as to how it would work if a request for continued examination is filed after payment of the issue fee. Response: If a request for continued examination is filed after payment of the issue fee, any patent term adjustment would be reduced by the number of days in the period starting on the day after the date of mailing of the notice of allowance and ending on the date the request for continued examination was filed. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(iv) provides that, subject to the limitations under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2), if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the Office to issue a patent within four months after the date on which the issue fee was paid under 35 U.S.C. 151 and all outstanding requirements were satisfied, the term of the patent shall be extended one day for each day after the date on which the issue fee was paid and all outstanding requirements were satisfied until the patent is issued. Thus, the period of adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(iv), if any, is ascertained by looking back from the issue date to the most recent time at which the issue fee or another requirement was outstanding, determining the succeeding date on which the issue fee was paid and all outstanding requirements were satisfied, and measuring the number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the day after the date that is four months after such date the issue fee was paid and all outstanding requirements were satisfied and ending on the date a patent was issued. Where prosecution in an application is reopened after a notice of allowance (before or after payment of the issue fee), either by the Office sua sponte or as the result of an applicant filing a request for continued examination, the date on which the issue fee was paid and all outstanding requirements were satisfied is the date on which the Issue Fee Transmittal Form (PTOL-85(b)) from the ultimate notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is returned to the Office (or a later date if there remain additional outstanding requirements, such as payment of any additional fees owed or required drawings to be submitted). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2731. The mailing of a notice of allowance by the Office subsequent to the reopening of prosecution is the Office's indication that the application is (again) in condition to be issued as
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 69 

 a patent, and the applicant's return of the Issue Fee Transmittal Form (PTOL-85(b)) is the applicant's indication or confirmation that the applicant wants any previously paid issue fee to be applied as the issue fee for the patent. See MPEP 1306 ("[i]f an issue fee has previously been paid in the application as reflected in the Notice of Allowance, the return of Part B (Fee(s) Transmittal form) will be considered a request to reapply the previously paid issue fee toward the issue fee that is now due"). Thus, if prosecution in an application is reopened after a notice of allowance as the result of an applicant filing a request for continued examination, the date on which the issue fee was paid and all outstanding requirements were satisfied is the date on which the Issue Fee Transmittal Form (PTOL-85(b)) from the ultimate notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is returned to the Office (or a later date if there remain additional outstanding requirements, such as payment of any additional fees owed or required drawings to be submitted). Applicants should note that § 1.114 does not permit an applicant to file a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after the date the issue fee is paid as a matter of right. See § 1.114(a)(1). Comment 12: One comment states that the date of mailing of a notice of allowance should not be included in § 1.704(c)(12) if it is excluded in § 1.703(b)(1). Response: Section 1.704(c)(12) as adopted in this final rule provides that the period of reduction begins on the "day after the date" of mailing of a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151. Comment 13: One comment questions whether the proposed change to § 1.703 and § 1.704 will be "retroactive," how existing petitions are being treated under Novartis, and whether there will be any interim procedure to request recalculation under Novartis. Several comments suggest that the proposed change to § 1.704 should only be applied prospectively if it is adopted. Response: The changes to § 1.703 in this final rule apply to any patent granted before, on, or after January 9, 2015. However, nothing in this final rule excuses or supersedes the timing requirements set forth in § 1.705 regarding requests for reconsideration of patent term adjustment for patents granted before, on, or after January 9, 2015. The Office has been deciding requests for reconsideration of a patent term adjustment timely filed pursuant to § 1.705 consistent with the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis since January 15, 2014 (the date the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Novartis). As discussed in the final rule to implement the patent term adjustment provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456 (2013)), because of the change to the time period for requesting reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination adopted in that final rule, the Office is not adopting ad hoc procedures for requesting a patent term adjustment recalculation specifically directed to the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis. See Revisions to Implement the Patent Term Adjustment Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections Act, 79 FR 27755, 27759 (May 15, 2014) (discussion of Federal Circuit decision in Novartis). The changes to 37 CFR 1.704 in this final rule apply only to applications in which a request for continued examination after a notice of allowance is filed on or after March 10, 2015. Comment 14: One comment states that the Office should amend § 1.704(d) to provide a way to submit an information disclosure statement without any reduction of patent term adjustment when the failure to submit the information disclosure statement within the thirty-day time period provided in § 1.704 was unintentional. Response: That a delay is "unintentional" may be an appropriate standard for the revival of an abandoned application (35 U.S.C. 27) or acceptance of a delayed maintenance fee (35 U.S.C. 41(c)), it is not an appropriate standard for the reinstatement of reduced patent term adjustment. See § 1.703(c)(2)(defining abandonment of an application as a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 70 

 processing or examination of an application notwithstanding that an application may be revived if the delay is shown to have been unintentional). Patent term adjustment reduced under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C) may be reinstated only if the applicant makes a showing that, "in spite of all due care," the applicant was unable to respond within the three-month period set forth in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C). The "in spite of all due care" standard in 35 U.S.C. 154(b) is significantly more stringent than the "unintentional" delay standard of 35 U.S.C. 27 and 41(c). See Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR at 56389 (response to comment 51) (discussing the "in spite of all due care" standard of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C)). Thus, reinstatement of reduced patent term adjustment solely on the basis of "unintentional" delay would not be appropriate. Comment 15: One comment questions whether the filing of a request for continued examination was also considered a failure under § 1.703(c)(10). Response: The Office has, as a matter of practice, not treated the filing of a request for continued examination as a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application under § 1.703(c)(10). The Office is revising § 1.703(c)(10) in this final rule to add "other than a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114," to clarify that the filing of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) in compliance with § 1.114 is treated under § 1.704(c)(12) rather than § 1.704(c)(10). Comment 16: One comment opposing the provisions of proposed § 1.704(c)(12) states that the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis does not permit the Office to treat applicant actions after a notice of allowance as a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application unless the action results in the resumption of examination. The comment requests that the Office clarify what applicant actions after a notice of allowance constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. Response: The regulations setting out the circumstances that are considered a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application in § 1.704 are authorized by 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii) ("The Director shall prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application"). The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C) and § 1.704(c) were not at issue in Novartis. Rather, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) and § 1.703(b) were at issue in Novartis. The Federal Circuit in Novartis held that the period between the mailing of a notice of allowance and the issue of the patent was not "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i), unless action is taken to actually resume examination after allowance. Novartis, 740 F.3d at 602. That an action (or inaction) by the applicant after the allowance of an application does not result in examination, and is thus not "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)" under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i), does not imply that an action (or inaction) by the applicant after the allowance of an application cannot be defined in § 1.704 as a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application under the authority provided in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii). Section 1.704(c)(10), as adopted in the AIPA patent term adjustment final rule, provides that the circumstances constituting a "failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application" include submission of an amendment under § 1.312 or other paper after a notice of allowance has been given or mailed, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 71 

 reduced by the lesser of: (1) The number of days, if any, beginning on the date the amendment under § 1.312 or other paper was filed and ending on the mailing date of the Office action or notice in response to the amendment under § 1.312 or such other paper; or (2) four months. All new patent applications are now scanned into the Office's Image File Wrapper (IFW) system, and all processing and examination of these applications is conducted using electronic images instead of the paper source documents. This process permits multiple employees to view the IFW file of an application concurrently, which has reduced processing delays in patent issuance for certain papers filed after the mailing of the notice of allowance. In view of the changes that have been brought about by the electronic filing and processing of patent applications, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application under § 1.704(c)(10). Specifically, the submission of the following papers after a notice of allowance will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing of examination of the application under § 1.704(c)(10): (1) An Issue Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B); (2) a power of attorney; (3) a power to inspect; (4) a change of address; (5) a change of entity status (micro, small, non-small); (6) a response to the examiner's reasons for allowance or a request to correct an error or omission in the "Notice of Allowance" or "Notice of Allowability"; (7) status letters; (8) requests for a refund; (9) an inventor's oath or declaration; (10) an information disclosure statement with a statement in compliance with § 1.704(d); (11) the resubmission by applicant of unlocatable paper(s) previously filed in the application (§ 1.251); (12) a request for acknowledgment of an information disclosure statement in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98, provided that the applicant had requested that the examiner acknowledge the information disclosure statement prior to the notice of allowance, or the request for acknowledgement was applicant's first opportunity to request that the examiner acknowledge the information disclosure statement; (13) comments on the substance of an interview where the applicant-initiated interview resulted in a notice of allowance; and (14) letters related to government interests (e.g., those between NASA and the Office). The Office previously indicated that three types of these papers (written status inquiries, requests for refund, an inventor's oath or declaration) were a type of after-allowance submission that would be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing and examination of the application. See Clarification of 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10) [ballot] Reduction of Patent Term Adjustment For Certain Types of Papers After a Notice of Allowance has been Mailed, 1247 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 111 (June 26, 2001); see also MPEP section 2732. The Office no longer considers submission of a written (or other type of) status inquiry, request for refund, or an inventor's oath or declaration to be a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing and examination of the application under § 1.704(c)(10) due to the changes that have been brought about by the electronic filing and processing of patent applications. The Office reminds applicants that the submission of other types of papers after a notice of allowance has been given or mailed constitutes a "failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application" in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be reduced by the lesser of: (1) The number of days, if any, beginning on the date the amendment under § 1.312 or other paper was filed and ending on the mailing date of the Office action or notice in response to the amendment under § 1.312 or such other paper; or (2) four months. See § 1.703(c)(10). An exemplary listing of such papers includes: (1) An amendment under § 1.312; (2) a paper containing a claim for priority or benefit or request to correct priority or benefit information (e.g., a new or supplemental application data sheet filed to correct foreign or
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 72 

 domestic benefit information); (3) a request for a corrected filing receipt; (4) a certified copy of a priority document; (5) drawings; (6) a letter relating to biologic deposits; (7) a request to change or correct inventorship; and (8) an information disclosure statement not accompanied by a statement in compliance with § 1.704(d). Rulemaking Considerations A. Administrative Procedure Act: The amendments to 37 CFR 1.703 in this rulemaking to provide that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance has been mailed, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance, simply implements the Federal Circuit's ruling on the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) in Novartis that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance has been mailed, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. Therefore, the amendment to 37 CFR 1.703 eliminates any inconsistency with the Federal Circuit's determination and is simply a procedural and/or interpretive rule. See Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. 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); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive). Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law), with respect to the change to 37 CFR 1.703. See 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)). The Office, however, published the change to 37 CFR 1.703 for comment as it sought the benefit of the public's views on the Office's implementation of the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) in Novartis. Similarly, the change to 37 CFR 1.703, as a procedural and/or interpretive rule, is not subject to the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and any delayed effective date. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that changes adopted in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The changes to the patent term adjustment provisions do not impose any additional requirements or fees on applicants. The change to 37 CFR 1.703 simply implements the Federal Circuit's ruling on the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) in Novartis and reflects how patent term adjustment is now calculated. The change to 37 CFR 1.704 specifies that the submission of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after any notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed constitutes a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. This change will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because applicants are not entitled to patent term adjustment for examination delays that result from an applicant's delay in prosecuting the application (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i) and 37 CFR 1.704(a)) and because applicants may avoid any consequences from this provision simply by refraining from filing a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed. The Office received no public comment on this Regulatory Flexibility Act certification, or any of the sections
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 73 

 under the Rulemaking Considerations, in the Novartis notice of proposed rulemaking. For the foregoing reasons, the changes adopted in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. 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 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). F. 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). G. 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). H. 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). I. 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). J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988). K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the United States Patent and Trademark Office will submit a report containing any final rule resulting from this rulemaking and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking 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
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 74 

 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. M. 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. N. 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 which involve the use of technical standards. O. 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. The rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment and extension have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) under OMB control number 0651-0020. The changes in this rulemaking would: (1) Provide that the time consumed by continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance; and (2) provide that the submission of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after any notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed constitutes a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. This rulemaking does not add any additional requirements (including information collection requirements) or fees for patent applicants or patentees. Therefore, the Office is not resubmitting information collection packages to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this rulemaking do not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collections approved under OMB control number 0651-0020 or any other information collections. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any 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 in 37 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Small businesses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES . 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted. . 2. Section 1.703 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 1.703 Period of adjustment of patent term due to examination delay. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) The number of days, if any, in the period beginning on the date on which any request for continued examination of the application under
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 75 

 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was filed and ending on the date of mailing of the notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151; * * * * * . 3. Section 1.704 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(10), (12), and (13) and (d)(1) and adding paragraph (c)(14) to read as follows: § 1.704 Reduction of period of adjustment of patent term. * * * * * (c) * * * (10) Submission of an amendment under § 1.312 or other paper, other than a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114, after a notice of allowance has been given or mailed, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be reduced by the lesser of: (i) The number of days, if any, beginning on the date the amendment under § 1.312 or other paper was filed and ending on the mailing date of the Office action or notice in response to the amendment under § 1.312 or such other paper; or (ii) Four months; * * * * * (12) Submission of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after any notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be reduced by the number of days, if any, beginning on the day after the date of mailing of the notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 and ending on the date the request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) was filed; (13) Failure to provide an application in condition for examination as defined in paragraph (f) of this section within eight months from either the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall be reduced by the number of days, if any, beginning on the day after the date that is eight months from either the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application and ending on the date the application is in condition for examination as defined in paragraph (f) of this section; and (14) Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in § 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent. (d)(1) A paper containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10) of this section, and a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114 with no submission other than an information disclosure statement in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under paragraph (c)(12) of this section, if the paper or request for continued examination is accompanied by a statement that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement: (i) Was first cited in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or from the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement; or (ii) Is a communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. * * * * * December 17, 2014 MICHELLE K. LEE Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 76 

Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2014-0043] Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Request for comments; notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public input and guidance to direct its continued efforts towards enhancing patent quality. These efforts focus on improving patent operations and procedures to provide the best possible work products, to enhance the customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics. In pursuit of these goals, the USPTO is launching a comprehensive and enhanced quality initiative. This initiative begins with a request for public comments on the set of proposals outlined in this document and will continue with a two-day "Quality Summit" with the public to discuss the outlined proposals. The conversation with the public held at this Quality Summit, complemented by written comments to these proposals, is the first of many steps toward developing a new paradigm of patent quality at the USPTO. Through an active and long- term partnership with the public, the USPTO seeks to ensure the issuance of the best quality patents and provide the best customer service possible. DATES: Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015. The USPTO will hold a Quality Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 at the Madison Building, USPTO Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia. This Summit will be broadcast via webinar and recorded for later viewing. For webinar participants, participation in all Summit sessions, including the group brainstorming sessions, will be possible. See the Supplementary Information section for the proposed agenda. In order to best prepare for the Quality Summit, the USPTO requests that those interested in attending the Quality Summit send an email to WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov indicating their planned attendance by March 18, 2015. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to: WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments - Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Michael Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the USPTO prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the Internet because sharing comments with the public is more easily accomplished. Electronic comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD[supreg] format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE[supreg] portable document format. The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing via the USPTO's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments. It
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 77 

 would be helpful to the USPTO if written comments included information about: (1) the name and affiliation of the individual responding; and (2) an indication of whether comments offered represent views of the respondent's organization or are the respondent's personal views. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-7700; Maria Nuzzolillo, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-8150; or Jeffrey R. West, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-2226. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The innovation that is fostered by a strong patent system is a key driver of economic growth and job creation. Effectively promoting such innovation requires that issued patents fully comply with all statutory requirements and, of equal importance, that the patent examination process advance quickly, transparently, and accurately. The USPTO has taken steps to provide clear and consistent enforcement of its statutory examination mandates. For instance, the USPTO has released new training for examiners in the area of functional claiming, guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims, and an improved classification system for searching prior art. Additionally, the USPTO has begun to implement long-range plans to improve its operational capabilities, such as upgrading IT tools for its patent examiners through the Patents End-to-End program and expanding international work-sharing capabilities, all of which will help improve the quality of issued patents. Presently, the USPTO is launching a new, wide-ranging initiative to enhance the quality of patents issued by the USPTO. High quality patents permit certainty and clarity of rights, which in turn fuels innovation and reduces needless litigation. Moreover and importantly, for the first time in recent history, the USPTO has the financial resources to consider longer-term and more expensive improvements to patent quality by leveraging the sustainable funding model provided by the fee setting provisions in the America Invents Act. The USPTO also has made steady progress in reducing both the backlog of unexamined patent application and patent pendency. The current backlog of unexamined patent applications has dropped from a high of more than 764,000 in January 2009 to presently less than 605,000. Similarly, the pendency from filing to a disposition has dropped from a high of 34.5 months in August 2010 to currently 27.0 months. While the agency still has progress to make in further reducing both the backlog and pendency, the confluence of these events make it the optimal time for the USPTO to pursue this enhanced quality initiative. Herein, the USPTO presents its approach to partnering with the public in enhancing patent quality. Specifically, the USPTO is setting forth its ongoing efforts to address quality and is announcing a variety of proposals designed to further enhance patent quality. Additionally, the USPTO is announcing a Quality Summit to dialogue with the public about its new enhanced quality initiative and is seeking written comments about the same. The USPTO intends for this request for comments and the Quality Summit to be the first of many conversations and collaborations with the public as the USPTO continues to enhance patent quality. Through this document, the USPTO presents various questions about its new enhanced quality initiative and proposals. The purpose of these questions is to stimulate the public's thinking on the larger topic of patent quality, as well as focus discussion at the Quality Summit on a limited number of concrete proposals. The public's response to these questions will guide the agency in formulating, prioritizing, and implementing changes to enhancing patent quality. Accordingly, the USPTO welcomes the public's views on both the specific questions included in the Notice and any other issues that the public's believes to be important to patent quality. To communicate about events and actions related to the enhanced patent quality initiative, the USPTO is
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 78 

 introducing a Web site: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Patent- Quality-Initiative.jsp. Lastly, the USPTO has held internal focus sessions with USPTO employees, including patent examiners, to engage in discussions on how to enhance quality at every step of prosecution. These internal discussions will continue in parallel with the discussions being held with the public through written comments to this document and in-person at the Quality Summit. Engaging in a dialogue with examiners to receive input from those who are responsible for the crucial day-to-day work of examining applications and issuing high quality patents is essential to initiating and sustaining the success of our quality enhancing efforts. Patent Quality Pillars As the USPTO commences its enhanced patent quality initiative, the USPTO is targeting three aspects of patent quality, termed the "patent quality pillars." These pillars are: (1) Excellence in work products, in the form of issued patents and Office actions; (2) excellence in measuring patent quality, including appropriate quality metrics; and (3) excellence in customer service. As the first pillar, the USPTO is focusing on the quality of the work products provided at every stage of the patent process. This pillar includes both the quality of issued patents and the quality of all work products during the filing, examination, and issuance process. The USPTO is committed to issuing patents that clearly define the scope of the rights therein, that are within the bounds of the patent statutes as interpreted by the judiciary, and that provide certainty as to their validity to encourage investment in research, development, and commercialization. The USPTO is committed to issuing patents that clearly define the scope of the rights therein, that are within the bounds of the patent statues as interpreted by the judiciary, and that provide certainty as to their validity to encourage investment in research, development, and commercialization. The USPTO recognizes that examiners are the fundamental resource essential to building and strengthening the first pillar. Examiners are the key building block to the infrastructure and foundation needed to enhance and sustain quality. The USPTO is committed to taking the steps necessary to evaluate the needs of examiners to ensure that they have the tools, resources, and training required to perform their jobs optimally and to provide a superior work product. Regarding the second pillar, the USPTO is focusing on its measurement of quality to evaluate work products and customer interactions. The USPTO welcomes the public's input on its measurement of patent quality and how it may be improved. Turning to the third pillar, the USPTO is focusing on the quality of the customer experience. The USPTO seeks feedback to ensure that customers are treated promptly, fairly, consistently, and professionally at all stages of the examination process. The USPTO also is focused on maximizing the effectiveness and professionalism of all customer interactions, be it through examiner interviews, official USPTO communications, or call center exchanges. In moving forward with the enhanced quality initiative framed by these three pillars, the USPTO seeks to deepen and refine its thinking about general aspects of quality. To that end, the USPTO welcomes feedback about the following questions that the public may wish to address via written comments or at the Quality Summit. Moreover, the USPTO solicits any other input outside of these questions that the public believes can lead to the issuance of higher quality patents. Are there aspects of enhanced quality other than the three "pillars" previously described that should guide the USPTO's enhanced quality initiative? Are there any new or necessary changes to existing procedures that the USPTO should consider to improve the efficiency and
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 79 

 effectiveness of the examination process? What should be included at the time of application filing in order to enhance patent quality? While specific questions have been provided to initiate the discussion on patent quality, the USPTO solicits any other input outside of these questions that the public believes can lead to the issuance of higher quality patents. Existing Quality Efforts The USPTO has several ongoing efforts to improve the quality of issued patents under the three patent quality pillars. The following non-exhaustive list describes some of the recent initiatives that the USPTO has undertaken to improve overall quality. First, the USPTO has taken steps to provide more robust training to examiners. In furtherance of a White House Executive Action designed to keep examiners' technical knowledge current with the rapid advancements in the state of the art, the USPTO initiated the Patent Examiner Technical Training Program. Through this program, scientists, engineers, professors, and industrial designers may volunteer to participate as guest lecturers to examiners in their field of art. More information on this program can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/pettp.jsp. Additionally, the USPTO has adopted, and trained all examiners on, the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. The CPC is a multi-office classification system developed by the USPTO and the European Patent Office to not only enhance the examiner's ability to locate the most relevant art as efficiently as possible, but also to enable work sharing with other patent offices around the globe. Second, as part of its ongoing commitment to legal training, the USPTO has developed training modules on claim clarity and functional claiming and is in the midst of training all examiners on those modules. These modules, which have been developed in furtherance of a White House Executive Action on clarity in patent claims, focus on evaluating functional claiming and improving the clarity of the examination record. More information, including four training modules provided to examiners on functional claiming, may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp#heading-2. Additionally, the USPTO routinely provides legal training as the law changes due to new legislation and case law developments. For example, the USPTO has offered extensive training on the new provisions of the America Invents Acts, as well as on subject matter eligibility in view of recent judicial rulings. More information about these trainings may be found respectively at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/interim_guidance_subject_matter_ eligibility.jsp. Third, as a further initiative to enhance clarity in patent claims, the USPTO has launched a voluntary glossary pilot program. This pilot program provides a framework for applicants in certain fields of art to include definitions of key claim terms within the patent specification in exchange for expedited examination through a first Office action. More information about this pilot may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/glossary_initiative.jsp. Fourth, the USPTO is engaged in pilot programs such as the Quick Path IDS Program (QPIDS) and the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP). Each of these programs serve to reduce pendency and improve quality by more expeditiously identifying and resolving those issues preventing the grant of a high-quality patent. Specifically, the QPIDS pilot permits an examiner to consider an Information Disclosure Statement after payment of the issue fee without the need to reopen prosecution, effectively obviating the need to pursue a Request for Continued Examination. The AFCP program allows applicants to submit an amendment after final action for consideration by the examiner without reopening prosecution. For more information on these pilot programs, see respectively http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/qpids.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/afcp.jsp.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 80 

 Fifth, the USPTO has implemented programs to take advantage of the search and examination work done in corresponding applications filed in other intellectual property offices through a variety of international cooperation efforts, for example, the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program and the Common Citation Document program (CCD). The PPH enables the USPTO to leverage fast-track examination procedures already in place among participating foreign patent offices to allow applicants to reach final disposition of a patent application more quickly and efficiently than standard examination processing. The CCD program consolidates the prior art cited by the five largest intellectual property offices of the world (i.e., USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO, and SIPO) for the family members of a patent application, thus enabling the search results for the same invention produced by several offices to be visualized on a single page. The CCD therefore enables USPTO examiners to have a single point of access to up-to-date prior art information. For more information, see respectively http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp?tag= infraredheatersconsumerreports-20#heading-8. Sixth, the USPTO has actively promoted interviews between applicants and examiners throughout prosecution, including through specific initiatives such as the First Action Interview Pilot Program. Under this particular pilot, applicants are permitted to conduct an interview with the examiner after reviewing a "Pre-Interview Communication" from the examiner containing the results of a prior art search conducted by the examiner. Through this interaction, the examiner and the applicant are in a position to rapidly advance prosecution of the application by resolving certain patentability issues at the beginning of the prosecution process with the goal of early allowance, when appropriate. For further details about the pilot, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/faipp_landing.jsp. Seventh, the USPTO continues to expand its assistance to independent inventors through educational programs hosted by the Office of the Innovation Development, as well as through the Pro Se Pilot Examination Unit. The Pro Se Pilot Examination Unit is comprised of experienced examiners from all scientific disciplines, who have received training specific to issues most often encountered by pro se applicants. The examiners communicate with the USPTO's pro se applicants by providing customer support, answering general patent- related questions via a toll-free number, email, or a walk-in service, and spearheading the development of training materials on the intricacies of filing a patent application. For further details on this pilot, see http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/uspto_establishes_ special_examination_unit. Eighth, the USPTO has provided, in addition to its numerous call centers, such as the Inventors Assistance Center and Application Assistance Unit, a dedicated customer service America Invents Act (AIA) Contact Center and HELP-AIA hotline, to assist in navigating the America Invents Act, including the new legal provisions and rules regarding inventor's oath or declarations, supplemental examination, preissuance submissions, citation of patent owner claim scope statements, post grant reviews, inter partes reviews, and the transitional program for covered business methods. This hotline implements the concept of guided assistance in which the initial USPTO operator stays with the caller throughout the call until the question is resolved rather than employ the often typical paradigm where the operator routes the call to a call center staffer. By using guided assistance for the AIA Contact Center, the USPTO aims to give callers a "one-stop-shopping" experience and eliminate the frustration that often occurs with call centers where a call may be routed several times before the caller reaches a staffer knowledgeable on the subject of the question. Ninth, the USPTO is exploring the use of crowdsourcing under a White House Executive Action to leverage the knowledge of those in the technical and scientific community to uncover hard-to-find prior art. The USPTO is currently investigating, through partnership with the public, the most effective means of employing crowdsourcing to obtain
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 81 

 such art. At the same time, the USPTO is working to improve the preissuance submissions process through which third parties submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a particular published application. In particular, the agency has improved the electronic user interface for making a submission to increase the volume of these submissions and make it easier for an examiner to ascertain the relevance of the art contained in the submission. More information on crowdsourcing and preissuance submissions may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp#heading-6. Tenth, as mentioned earlier, the USPTO measures and reports a Quality Composite Metric composed of seven factors: (1) the final disposition review; (2) the in-process review; (3) the first action on the merits (FAOM) search review; (4) the complete FAOM review; (5) the external quality survey; (6) the internal quality survey; and (7) the quality index report. To facilitate an understanding of these metrics, the USPTO has developed two brief videos and two documents explaining the Quality Composite Metric, along with the Metric scores. These videos and explanatory documents are available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp. Lastly, the Patents End-to-End Program (PE2E) sets forth a new way of processing patent applications by providing a single online environment to manage examination activities and the work done across multiple systems. Among other things, PE2E aims to reduce the number of manual tasks required by examiners to access and coordinate their systems so that their focus can remain on the essential task of performing high-quality examination. Further, as part of PE2E, the USPTO is investigating the design and implementation of an improved notification system that would provide additional prosecution-related alerts to patent applicants in real-time. New Quality Proposals Beyond the existing quality improvements, the USPTO seeks to make additional enhancements and, to start, has developed six proposals for the public's consideration and feedback. We recognize that enhancing patent quality will require long-term and sustained efforts. These six proposals are meant to renew the conversation about this very important USPTO priority. We also intend that our conversation with the public will not end after this document or upcoming Quality Summit, but instead continue well into the future through a variety of fora. At this time, the USPTO seeks to have a discussion with the public about targeting the most desirable proposals and modifying and/or fine- tuning those proposals to maximize the benefit to the patent system. The USPTO also welcomes the public's input on other programs or initiatives not reflected in the proposals that the public believes may enhance patent quality. Recognizing that USPTO time and resources are limited and must be balanced to support many efforts simultaneously, the USPTO welcomes input on the prioritization of these proposals. The USPTO invites the public to discuss these proposals and the information above by sending written comments in response to this document and/or by attending the USPTO Quality Summit. Following the Quality Summit and the receipt of comments to this document, the USPTO plans to continue its engagement about these proposals through a series of additional events after making refinements, as needed, to the proposals based upon the initial public feedback. The USPTO anticipates hosting future events in locations across the country to solicit input about the proposals and their operation before implementation. Through such continued engagement with the public, the USPTO can take the correct next steps towards improving the quality of patents issued. The USPTO's six proposals for enhanced patent quality are summarized in the table below, followed by a discussion of each proposal for the public's consideration and comment. Pillar Title of proposal
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 82 

 1: Excellence in work products.... 1. Applicant Requests for Prosecution Review of Selected Applications 2. Automated Pre-Examination Search 3. Clarity of the Record 2: Excellence in measuring patent 4. Review of and Improvements to quality. Quality Metrics 3: Excellence in customer service. 5. Review of Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality 6. In-Person Interview Capability with All Examiners Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: Applicant Requests for Prosecution Review of Selected Applications The Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) conducts reviews of randomly selected Office actions from examiners. The USPTO proposes a mechanism for an applicant to request OPQA prosecution review of a particular application where the applicant believes that the application contains an issue that would benefit from further review. An applicant would identify the application by serial number, which would then be placed into a pool of applications for selection by OPQA for review. Through this process, the applicant would be able to bring issues to the attention of OPQA so that the Office can analyze the data from the reviews to identify trends and challenges to better inform future training and improvements to examination process. Proposal 2 Under Pillar 1: Automated Pre-Examination Search The USPTO is continuously looking into better ways to get the best prior art in front of an examiner as soon as possible in the examination process. One way this might be done is by an automated pre- examination search. Currently, before an examiner begins substantive examination, the examiner may request, at his/her discretion, that the USPTO's Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) perform an automated pre-examination search. To do so, STIC uses a computerized linguistic tool, called the Patent Linguistic Utility Service (PLUS), which includes an algorithm to analyze an application for the presence of frequently-used terms. STIC then searches a database of prior art limited to U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications for references containing those terms to generate a list of possible references for the examiner's consideration with the frequently-used terms highlighted. With these references in hand as a starting point, the examiner is positioned to begin substantive examination, which includes their own search of the prior art done based upon a review of the specification and actual claim language (as opposed to mere frequently-used terms). Given that computerized searching algorithms and database technologies have advanced significantly in recent years, the USPTO is seeking input on new tools that might be useful to conduct a pre- examination search. For instance, the new tool might utilize a custom extraction routine that enables keyword, stemming, concept-semantic, and relational word searching capabilities. The USPTO's current pre- examination search tool PLUS does not possess these functionalities. Likewise, the new tool might employ more modern natural language search queries, which PLUS also cannot do. Proposal 3 Under Pillar 1: Clarity of the Record The USPTO recognizes that, in order for the patent system to fulfill its critical role in promoting innovation, issued patents must not only fully comply with all statutory requirements, but also contain an Official record that is unambiguous and accurate. Such a complete record provides patent boundaries that are clearly defined to the benefit of the patent owner, the courts, third-parties, and the public
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 83 

 at large, giving inventors and investors the confidence to take the necessary risks to launch products and start businesses, and the public the benefit of knowing the precise boundaries of an exclusionary right. The USPTO is actively pursuing further measures and initiatives for enhancing the clarity and completeness of all aspects of the Official record during prosecution of an application. The USPTO is seeking to initiate a discussion to identify procedures that could be made part of standard examination practices to improve the clarity of the prosecution record. As an example of the USPTO's current efforts to improve the clarity of the Official record, examiners have completed five training modules on functional claiming under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This training covers identifying 112(f) limitations, interpreting those limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, making the record clear as to the presence and treatment of 112(f) type claims, and evaluating 112(f) limitations in software-related claims for definiteness, plain and customary meaning of terms, and treating claims as a whole. Furthermore, the USPTO is providing training modules covering other statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and providing additional training to examiners on identifying compliance to 35 U.S.C. 112 in continuation applications. A list of upcoming training modules can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/executive_actions.jsp. The USPTO seeks the assistance of the public in identifying procedures to enhance the clarity and completeness of the Official record during prosecution of an application. Any and all ideas for such procedures are invited for discussion. Exemplary procedures under consideration include: Making claim construction explicit in the record, including the scope of claim terms, claim preambles, and functionally defined clauses (e.g., wherein clauses). Further detail in the recordation of interviews, pre- appeal conference decisions, and appeal conferences, including identifying which arguments presented in the interview overcome individual rejections of record. Where a statement of the reasons for allowance is necessary, providing a more detailed summary of the reasons for allowing a claim; for example, identifying the amendment, argument, or evidence that overcomes a rejection of record, so as to clearly communicate to the public the examiner's reasons why the claimed invention is patentable. Proposal 4 Under Pillar 2: Review of and Improvements to Quality Metrics The USPTO proposes to re-assess the effectiveness of the Quality Composite Metric and welcomes stakeholder guidance on the effectiveness of the current Metric, as well as ways to improve it. As noted earlier, details about the Quality Composite Metric are available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp. By reevaluating the Quality Composite Metric, the USPTO aims to increase the effectiveness, transparency, clarity, and simplicity of USPTO review, employ a system that measures both errors by commission and errors by omission, and obtain examination metrics that are specifically tied to procedures for improving performance based on identified trends. Additionally, the USPTO proposes to re-evaluate its current ways of measuring the impact of training provided to examiners to enhance the effectiveness of examiner training. Proposal 5 Under Pillar 3: Review of the Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality In an effort to resolve outstanding issues in an application before prosecution on the merits closes, the USPTO seeks assistance from the public on determining whether the current compact prosecution model should be modified. Such revisions to the compact model seek to enhance
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 84 

 both the overall pendency and the quality of the prosecution. Under normal compact prosecution practice, an applicant typically receives only a single non-final Office action. The USPTO seeks ideas for proactive alternatives to Request for Continued Examination filings or appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The goal of such an alternative is to increase the quality of the communication between applicant and examiner during prosecution, thereby focusing the prosecution on resolution of patentability issues rather than on concluding the prosecution. Such an increased emphasis on the resolution of any and all patentability issues during prosecution may enhance the quality of the patents that issue. For example, the USPTO seeks feedback on the desirability of a procedure by which an applicant might pay for entry of an additional response that may or may not require an examiner interview to further prosecution in an application before a final rejection is issued, thereby providing for at least two non-final Office actions in an application. An additional response, either with or without an interview, may give an applicant the opportunity to present arguments or amendments to overcome outstanding rejections, which may result in a more efficient and expeditious disposal of the application. Proposal 6 Under Pillar 3: In-Person Interview Capability With All Examiners Effective interviews between the examiner and the applicant lead to the issue of better quality patents and to greater customer satisfaction with the prosecution. Currently, in-person interviews are conducted at the USPTO Headquarters in Alexandria, VA. Interviews may also be conducted at the fully operational USPTO Satellite Offices (currently, Detroit and Denver) for those examiners stationed at those Offices and for those examiners hoteling within the local commuting areas of those Offices (e.g., within 50 miles). Although recent improvements USPTO collaboration tools permit applicant interviews via video, some applicants nevertheless prefer in-person interviews. The USPTO thus proposes that in-person interviews could be conducted at additional locations, such as at regional libraries across the country that have partnered with the USPTO to serve as repositories for patent materials, for example, the Boston Public Library, Chicago Public Library, and Los Angeles Public Library. Upon a request for an in- person interview with a specific examiner, the USPTO would designate an acceptable remote interview location nearest to that examiner's official duty station and provide arrangements for that examiner to travel to the interview location and conduct the interview. This proposal would ensure the availability of in-person interviews for all applications as the USPTO refines its telework program and leverages other USPTO affiliated locations. This proposal would have cost implications on the USPTO, and the USPTO welcomes a discussion on the public's desire and willingness to pay for such additional service. Quality Summit In addition to seeking written comments from the public and further input from our employees, the USPTO is planning to hold a two-day Quality Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 in the Madison Building, USPTO Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia. The Quality Summit is an important opportunity for the public to voice their feedback and ideas about quality to ensure the most efficient prosecution processes and the issuance of the highest quality patents. Likewise, the USPTO intends to utilize significant portions of the Summit to work with the public to brainstorm additional options to enhance patent quality. The agenda for the morning session of the first day of the Quality Summit includes stakeholder presentations and a panel discussion on "Perspectives on the Importance of Quality," as well as a discussion about "Key Aspects of Quality." The afternoon session of the first day will be dedicated to the first pillar of quality, "Providing the Best Possible Work Products," by focusing on prosecution and
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 85 

 examination improvements. The agenda for the second day of the Quality Summit will be dedicated to the second and third pillars of quality, with the morning session covering "Establishing Appropriate Quality Metrics" and the afternoon session directed to "Improving the Customer Experience and Providing Excellent Customer Service." When discussing the three pillars of the Patent Quality Initiative and the proposals, the USPTO intends to interact and listen to the public through both large group discussions and small group brainstorming sessions. During these discussions, the USPTO welcomes an in-depth, specific, and expansive conversation about its proposals, as well as any and all aspects of enhanced quality that the public would like to raise. A more detailed agenda follows: Time Topic DAY 1: MORNING SESSION INTRODUCTION TO THE ENHANCED QUALITY INITIATIVE AND DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY 8:30 to 8:40 am.............. Welcome. 8:40 to 9:00 am.............. Opening Remarks. 9:00 to 10:30 am............. Perspectives on the Importance of Quality Speakers to include corporate counsel, private practitioners, academics, economists, and jurists. 10:30 to 10:45 am............ Break. 10:45 to 12:00 pm............ All Audience Discussion of Key Aspects of Quality 12:00 to 1:00 pm............. Break for lunch. DAY 1: AFTERNOON SESSION PROVIDING THE BEST POSSIBLE WORK PRODUCTS 1:00 to 1:30 pm.............. Pillar 1: Overview of Currently Available Improvements. 1:30 to 1:45 pm.............. Introduction of Proposals 1 and 2. 1:45 to 2:30 pm.............. All Audience Discussion of Proposals 1 and 2. 2:30 to 2:45 pm.............. Break. 2:45 to 4:45 pm.............. Brainstorming for Pillar 1 in General and Proposals 1 and 2 Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 4:45 to 5 pm................. Concluding Remarks. DAY 2: MORNING SESSION ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE QUALITY METRICS 8:30 to 8:45 am.............. Welcome. 8:45 to 9:15 am.............. Pillars 1 and 2: Overview of Currently Available Improvements and the Quality Composite. 9:15 to 9:30 am.............. Introduction of Proposals 3 and 4. 9:30 to 10:15 am............. All Audience Discussion of Proposals 3 and 4. 10:15 to 10:30 am............ Break. 10:30 to 12:30 pm............ Brainstorming for Pillars 1 and 2 in General and Proposals 3 and 4 Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 12:30 to 1:30 pm............. Break for lunch. DAY 2: AFTERNOON SESSION IMPROVING THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND PROVIDING EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE 1:30 to 2:00 pm.............. Pillar 3: Overview of Currently Available Improvements.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 86 

 2:00 to 2:15 pm.............. Introduction of Proposals 5 and 6. 2:15 to 3:00 pm.............. All Audience Discussion of Proposals 5 and 6. 3:00 to 3:15 pm.............. Break. 3:15 to 5:15 pm.............. Brainstorming for Pillar 3 in General and Proposals 5 and 6 Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 5:15 to 5:30 pm.............. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps. February 3, 2015 MICHELLE K. LEE Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 87 

Changes to Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2013-0025] RIN 0651-AC87 Changes To Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 ("PLTIA") amends the United States patent laws to implement the provisions of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, July 2, 1999, (hereinafter "Hague Agreement") and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. Under the Hague Agreement, qualified applicants may apply for design protection in the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is revising the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA. DATES: Effective date: The changes in this final rule take effect on May 13, 2015. Applicability date: The changes to 37 CFR 1.32, 1.46, 1.63, 1.76, and 1.175 in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. The changes to 37 CFR 1.53(b) and (c) and 1.57(a)(4) in this final rule apply only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Boris Milef, Senior PCT Legal Examiner, International Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 272-3288 or David R. Gerk, Patent Attorney, Office of Policy and International Affairs, at (571) 272-9300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary: Purpose: Under the Hague Agreement available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/hague/, qualified applicants may apply for design protection in the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. Title I of the PLTIA amends title 35, United States Code, to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. This final rule revises the relevant rules of practice in title 37, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement title I of the PLTIA. Summary of Major Changes to U.S. Practice: The major changes to U.S. practice in title I of the PLTIA pertain to: (1) Standardizing formal requirements for international design applications; (2) establishing the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") as an office through which international design applications may be filed; (3) providing a right of priority with respect to international design applications; (4) treating an international design application that designates the United States as having the same effect from its filing date as that of a national design application; (5) providing provisional rights for published international design applications that designate the United States; (6) setting the patent term for design patents issuing from both national design applications under chapter 16 and international design applications designating the United States to 15 years from the date of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 88 

 patent grant; (7) providing for examination by the Office of international design applications that designate the United States; and (8) permitting an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in an international design application to be excused as to the United States under certain conditions. In addition, as to the applicability dates for certain provisions in existing rules, this final rule makes those applicability dates more accessible by stating them directly in the body of those rules. The Office is specifically revising the rules of practice (37 CFR parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41) to provide for the filing of international design applications by applicants in the USPTO as an office of indirect filing. The Office will transmit the international design application and any collected international fees to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), subject to national security review and payment of a transmittal fee. The International Bureau will review the application for compliance with the applicable formal requirements under the Hague Agreement. The Office is also revising the rules of practice to set forth the formal requirements of an international design application, including specific content requirements where the United States is designated. Specifically, an international design application designating the United States must identify the inventor and include a claim and the inventor's oath or declaration. The final rules also specify that an international design application designating the United States may be refused by the Office as a designated office if the applicant is not a person qualified under 35 U.S.C. chapter 11 to be an applicant. Additionally, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide for examination of international design applications that designate the United States. International design applications are reviewed by the International Bureau for compliance with requirements under the Hague Agreement. Where these requirements have been met, the International Bureau will register the industrial design in the International Register and, subsequently, publish the international registration and send a copy of the publication to each designated office. Since international registration will only occur after the International Bureau finds that the application conforms to the applicable formal requirements, examination before the Office will generally be limited to substantive matters. With certain exceptions, the Hague Agreement imposes a time period of up to 12 months from the date of publication of the international registration for an examining office to refuse an international design application. The rules are revised to provide for the applicability of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 to examination of international design applications consistent with the Hague Agreement and to provide for the various notifications to the International Bureau required of an examining office under the Hague Agreement. The Office is further revising the rules of practice to provide for: (1) Review of a filing date established by the International Bureau; (2) excusing an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with an international design application; (3) priority claims with respect to international design applications; (4) payment of fees; and (5) treatment of international design applications for national security review. Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). Background: The Hague Agreement, negotiated under the auspices of WIPO, is the latest revision to the 1925 Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs ("1925 Agreement"). The United States is not a party to the 1925 Agreement and did not join any of the subsequent Acts revising the 1925 Agreement, because those agreements either did not provide, or did not adequately provide, for substantive examination of international design applications by national offices. The Hague Agreement, adopted at a diplomatic conference on July 2, 1999, is the first Act that adequately provides for a system of individual review by the national offices of Contracting Parties. In accordance with Article 28, the Hague Agreement will enter into
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 89 

 force for the United States three months after the date that the United States deposits its instrument of ratification with the Director General of the International Bureau of WIPO or at any later date indicated in the instrument. As stated in the President's November 13, 2006, Letter of Transmittal to the Senate, the United States will not deposit its instrument of ratification until the necessary implementing legal structure has been established domestically. Treaty Doc. 109-21. Title I of the PLTIA, enacted on December 18, 2012, amended title 35, United States Code, in order to implement the Hague Agreement. See Public Law 112-211, sections 101-103, 126 Stat. 1527, 1527-33 (2012). Its provisions are to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. On February 13, 2015, the United States deposited its instrument of ratification with the Director General of the International Bureau of WIPO. These final rules implement title I of the PLTIA. The main purpose of the Hague Agreement is to facilitate protection for industrial designs by allowing applicants to apply for protection in those countries and intergovernmental organizations that are Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single standardized application in a single language. Currently, a U.S. design applicant seeking global protection generally has to file separate design applications in each country or intergovernmental organization for which protection is sought, complying with the formal requirements imposed by each country or intergovernmental organization. The Hague Agreement simplifies the application process and reduces the costs for applicants seeking to obtain rights globally. The Hague Agreement also provides for centralized international registration of designs and renewal of registrations. The Hague Agreement imposes a time limit on a Contracting Party to refuse the effects of international registration in that Contracting Party if the conditions for the grant of protection under the law of that Contracting Party are not met. Major provisions of the Hague Agreement as implemented by title I of the PLTIA include the following: Article 3 of the Hague Agreement provides that "[a]ny person that is a national of a State that is a Contracting Party or of a State member of an intergovernmental organization that is a Contracting Party, or that has a domicile, a habitual residence or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a Contracting Party, shall be entitled to file an international application." Article 4(1)(a) provides that "[t]he international application may be filed, at the option of the applicant, either directly with the International Bureau or through the Office of the applicant's Contracting Party." Article 4(2) allows "[t]he Office of any Contracting Party [to] require that the applicant pay a transmittal fee to it, for its own benefit, in respect of any international application filed through it." Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 382 to implement the provisions of Articles 3 and 4. 126 Stat. at 1528. Section 382(a) provides that "[a]ny person who is a national of the United States, or has a domicile, a habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States, may file an international design application by submitting to the Patent and Trademark Office an application in such form, together with such fees, as may be prescribed by the Director." Id. Section 382(b) requires the Office to "perform all acts connected with the discharge of its duties under the [Hague Agreement], including the collection of international fees and the transmittal thereof to the International Bureau." Id. Transmittal of the international design application is subject to 35 U.S.C. chapter 17 and payment of a transmittal fee. Id. Article 5 of the Hague Agreement and Rule 7 of the "Common Regulations under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement" ("Hague Agreement Regulations" or "Regulations") concern the contents of an international design application. Article 5(1) requires the international design application to be in one of the prescribed languages and specifies the contents required for all international design applications. Specifically, it provides that the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 90 

 application "shall contain or be accompanied by (i) a request for international registration under [the Hague Agreement]; (ii) the prescribed data concerning the applicant; (iii) the prescribed number of copies of a reproduction or, at the choice of the applicant, of several different reproductions of the industrial design that is the subject of the international application, presented in the prescribed manner; however, where the industrial design is two-dimensional and a request for deferment of publication is made in accordance with [Article 5(5)], the international application may, instead of containing reproductions, be accompanied by the prescribed number of specimens of the industrial design; (iv) an indication of the product or products which constitute the industrial design or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used, as prescribed; (v) an indication of the designated Contracting Parties; (vi) the prescribed fees; [and] (vii) any other prescribed particulars." Article 5(2) of the Hague Agreement and Rule 11 of the Hague Agreement Regulations set forth additional mandatory contents that may be required by any Contracting Party whose Office is an Examining Office and whose law, at the time it becomes party to the Hague Agreement, so requires. Specifically, Article 5(2) provides that "an application for the grant of protection to an industrial design . . . [may], in order for that application to be accorded a filing date under that law" be required to contain any of the following elements: "(i) Indications concerning the identity of the creator of the industrial design that is the subject of that application; (ii) a brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design that is the subject of that application; [and] (iii) a claim." Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 383 to provide that, "[i]n addition to any requirements pursuant to chapter 16, the international design application shall contain - (1) a request for international registration under the treaty; (2) an indication of the designated Contracting Parties; (3) data concerning the applicant as prescribed in the treaty and the Regulations; (4) copies of a reproduction or, at the choice of the applicant, of several different reproductions of the industrial design that is the subject of the international design application, presented in the number and manner prescribed in the treaty and the Regulations; (5) an indication of the product or products that constitute the industrial design or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used, as prescribed in the treaty and the Regulations; (6) the fees prescribed in the treaty and the Regulations; and (7) any other particulars prescribed in the Regulations." 126 Stat. at 1528-29. Article 6 of the Hague Agreement provides a right of priority with respect to international design applications. Article 6(1) provides that "[t]he international design application may contain a declaration claiming, under Article 4 of the Paris Convention, the priority of one or more earlier applications filed in or for any country party to that Convention or any Member of the World Trade Organization." Article 6(2) provides that "[t]he international [design] application shall, as from its filing date and whatever may be its subsequent fate, be equivalent to a regular filing within the meaning of Article 4 of the Paris Convention." Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 386 to provide for a right of priority with respect to international design applications. Section 386(a) provides that "[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172, a national application shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior international design application that designated at least 1 country other than the United States." 126 Stat. at 1529. Section 386(b) provides that "[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172 and the treaty and the Regulations, an international design application designating the United States shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior foreign application, a prior international application as defined in section 351(c) designating at
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 91 

 least 1 country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least 1 country other than the United States." Id. Section 386(c) provides for domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications designating the United States in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120. 126 Stat. at 1529-30. Article 7 of the Hague Agreement and Rule 12 of the Hague Agreement Regulations provide for designation fees. Under Article 7(2) and Rule 12(3), the designation fee may be an "individual designation fee." Article 7(2) provides that for any Contracting Party whose Office is an Examining Office, the "amount may be fixed by the said Contracting Party . . . for the maximum period of protection allowed by the Contracting Party concerned." Rule 12(3) provides that the individual designation fee may "comprise[ ] two parts, the first part to be paid at the time of filing the international design application and the second part to be paid at a later date which is determined in accordance with the law of the Contracting Party concerned." Rule 12(1) lists other fees concerning the international design application, including the basic fee and publication fee. Article 8(1) of the Hague Agreement and Rule 14 of the Hague Agreement Regulations provide that the International Bureau will examine the international design application for compliance with the requirements of the Hague Agreement and Regulations and invite the applicant to make any required correction within a prescribed time limit. Under Article 8(2), the failure to timely comply with the invitation will result in abandonment of the application, except where the irregularity concerns a requirement under Article 5(2) or a special requirement under the Regulations, in which case the failure to timely correct will result in the application being deemed not to contain the designation of the Contracting Party concerned. Article 9 of the Hague Agreement establishes the filing date of an international design application. Article 9(1) provides that "[w]here the international application is filed directly with the International Bureau, the filing date shall, subject to [Article 9(3)], be the date on which the International Bureau receives the international application." Article 9(2) provides that "[w]here the international application is filed through the Office of the applicant's Contracting Party, the filing date shall be determined as prescribed." The filing date of an international application filed with an office of indirect filing is prescribed in Rule 13(3) of the Regulations. Article 9(3) provides that "[w]here the international application has, on the date on which it is received by the International Bureau, an irregularity which is prescribed as an irregularity entailing a postponement of the filing date of the international application, the filing date shall be the date on which the correction of such irregularity is received by the International Bureau." Rule 14(1) sets forth the time limit in which the applicant is required to correct such irregularities, and Rule 14(2) sets forth the irregularities that are prescribed as entailing postponement of the filing date of the international design application. The PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 384, which provides in subsection (a) that the filing date of an international design application in the United States shall be the "effective registration date" subject to review under subsection (b). 126 Stat. at 1529. The term "effective registration date" is defined in section 381(a)(5), added by the PLTIA, as "the date of international registration determined by the International Bureau under the treaty." 126 Stat. at 1528. Section 384(b) provides that "[a]n applicant may request review by the Director of the filing date of the international design application in the United States" and that "[t]he Director may determine that the filing date of the international design application in the United States is a date other than the effective registration date." 126 Stat. at 1529. It also authorizes the Director to "establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to review the filing date under this section." Id. Section 384(a) also provides that "any international design application designating the United States that
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 92 

 otherwise meets the requirements of chapter 16 may be treated as a design application under chapter 16." Id. Article 10(1) of the Hague Agreement provides that "[t]he International Bureau shall register each industrial design that is the subject of an international application immediately upon receipt by it of the international application or, where corrections are invited under Article 8, immediately upon receipt of the required corrections." Article 10(2) provides that "[s]ubject to subparagraph (b), the date of the international registration shall be the filing date of the international application." Article 10(2)(b) provides that "[w]here the international application has, on the date on which it is received by the International Bureau, an irregularity that relates to Article 5(2), the date of the international registration shall be the date on which the correction of such irregularity is received by the International Bureau or the filing date of the international application, whichever is the later." Under Rule 15(2) of the Regulations, "[t]he international registration shall contain (i) all the data contained in the international application . . . ; (ii) any reproduction of the industrial design; (iii) the date of the international registration; (iv) the number of the international registration; [and] (v) the relevant class of the International Classification, as determined by the International Bureau." Article 10(3)(a) of the Hague Agreement provides that "[t]he international registration shall be published by the International Bureau." Under Article 10(3)(b), "[t]he International Bureau shall send a copy of the publication of the international registration to each designated Office." Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 390 to provide that "[t]he publication under the treaty of an international design application designating the United States shall be deemed a publication under [35 U.S.C.] 122(b)." 126 Stat. at 1531. Article 10(4) of the Hague Agreement provides that the International Bureau shall, subject to Articles 10(5) and 11(4)(b), keep each international application and international registration confidential until publication. Under Article 10(5)(a), "[t]he International Bureau shall, immediately after registration has been effected, send a copy of the international registration, along with any relevant statement, document or specimen accompanying the international application, to each Office that has notified the International Bureau that it wishes to receive such a copy and has been designated in the international application." Article 11 of the Hague Agreement provides for deferment of publication under certain conditions. Article 11(3) prescribes the procedure where a request for deferment of publication is filed in an international design application designating a Contracting Party that has made a declaration under Article 11(1)(b) stating that deferment of publication is not possible under its law. Article 12(1) of the Hague Agreement provides that "[t]he Office of any designated Contracting Party may, where the conditions for the grant of protection under the law of that Contracting Party are not met in respect of any or all of the industrial designs that are the subject of an international registration, refuse the effects, in part or in whole, of the international registration. . . ." Article 12(1) further provides that "no Office may refuse the effects, in part or in whole, of any international registration on the ground that requirements relating to the form or contents of the international application that are provided for in [the Hague Agreement] or the Regulations or are additional to, or different from, those requirements have not been satisfied under the law of the Contracting Party concerned." Article 12(2) provides that the refusal of the effects of an international registration shall be communicated to the International Bureau within the prescribed period and shall state the grounds on which the refusal is based. Under Rule 18(1) of the Hague Agreement Regulations, the prescribed period for sending the notification of refusal is six months from publication, or twelve months from publication where an office makes a declaration under Rule 18(1)(b). The declaration under Rule
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 93 

 18(1)(b) may state that the international registration shall produce the effects under Article 14(2)(a) at the latest "at a time specified in the declaration which may be later than the date referred to in that Article but which shall not be more than six months after the said date" or "at a time at which protection is granted according to the law of the Contracting Party where a decision regarding the grant of protection was unintentionally not communicated within the period applicable under [Rule 18(1)(a) or (b)]." See Rule 18(1)(c). Rule 18(2)(b) provides that the notification of refusal "shall contain or indicate (i) the Office making the notification, (ii) the number of the international registration, (iii) all the grounds on which the refusal is based . . ., (iv) where the . . . refusal is based . . . [on] an earlier national, regional or international application or registration, the filing date and number, the priority date (if any), the registration date and number (if available), a copy of a reproduction of the earlier industrial design (if . . . accessible to the public) and the name and address of the owner . . ., (v) where the refusal does not relate to all the industrial designs that are the subject of the international registration, those to which it relates or does not relate, (vi) whether the refusal may be subject to review or appeal . . ., and (vii) the date on which the refusal was pronounced." Article 12(3) of the Hague Agreement provides that "[t]he International Bureau shall, without delay, transmit a copy of the notification of refusal to the holder," and that "[t]he holder shall enjoy the same remedies as if . . . the international registration had been the subject of an application for a grant of protection under the law applicable to the Office that communicated the refusal." Under Article 12(4), "[a]ny refusal may be withdrawn, in part or in whole, at any time by the Office that communicated it." Article 13 of the Hague Agreement permits a Contracting Party to notify the Director General in a declaration, where the Contracting Party's "law, at the time it becomes party to this Act, requires that designs [in the] application conform to a requirement of unity of design, unity of production or unity of use, . . . or that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a single application." Under Article 14(1) of the Hague Agreement, "[t]he international registration shall, from the date of the international registration, have at least the same effect in each designated Contracting Party as a regularly-filed application for the grant of protection of the industrial design under the law of that Contracting Party." Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 385 to provide that "[a]n international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date . . ., of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16 [of title 35, United States Code]." 126 Stat. at 1529. The PLTIA also amends 35 U.S.C. 154 to provide for provisional rights in international design applications that designate the United States. 126 Stat. at 1531-32. Article 14(2)(a) of the Hague Agreement provides that "[i]n each designated Contracting Party the Office of which has not communicated a refusal in accordance with Article 12, the international registration shall have the same effect as a grant of [design] protection . . . under the law of that Contracting Party at the latest from the date of expiration of the period allowed for it to communicate a refusal or, where a Contracting Party has made a corresponding declaration under the Regulations, at the latest at the time specified in that declaration." Article 14(2)(b) provides that "[w]here the Office of a designated Contracting Party has communicated a refusal and has subsequently withdrawn, in part or in whole, that refusal, the international registration shall, to the extent that the refusal is withdrawn, have the same effect in that Contracting Party as a grant of [design protection] under the law of the said Contracting Party at the latest from the date on which the refusal was withdrawn." Rule 18(4) of the Hague Agreement Regulations sets forth the required contents of a notification of withdrawal of refusal. Alternatively, under Rule
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 94 

 18bis(2), the office of a Contracting Party may send the International Bureau a statement of grant of protection instead of a notification of withdrawal of refusal. Article 16 of the Hague Agreement and Rule 21 of the Hague Agreement Regulations provide for the recording of certain changes in the International Register by the International Bureau, such as changes in ownership or the name or address of the holder. Under Article 16(2), any such recording at the International Bureau "shall have the same effect as if it had been made in the Register of the Office of each of the Contracting Parties concerned, except that a Contracting Party may, in a declaration, notify the Director General that a recording [of a change in ownership] shall not have that effect in that Contracting Party until the Office of that Contracting Party has received the statements or documents specified in that declaration." Under Article 17 of the Hague Agreement, an "international design registration shall be effected for an initial term of five years counted from the date of international registration" and "may be renewed for additional terms of five years, in accordance with the prescribed procedure and subject to payment of the prescribed fees." The initial term of protection and additional terms may be replaced by a maximum period of protection allowed by a Contracting Party. See Article 7(2). The PLTIA amends 35 U.S.C. 173 to set the term of a design patent to 15 years from date of grant. 126 Stat. at 1532. The PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 387 to allow the Director to establish procedures, including a requirement for payment of the fee specified in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7), to excuse as to the United States "[a]n applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application" upon a showing of unintentional delay. 126 Stat. at 1530. Hague Agreement Regulations Rule 8 provides for certain requirements concerning the applicant and the creator. Under Rule 8(1)(a)(ii), "[w]here the law of a Contracting Party bound by the 1999 Act requires the furnishing of an oath or declaration of the creator, that Contracting Party may, in a declaration, notify the Director General of that fact." Rule 8(1)(b) provides that the declarations referred to in Rules 8(1)(a)(i) and (a)(ii) shall specify the form and mandatory contents of any required statement, document, oath, or declaration. Rule 8(3) provides that "[w]here an international application contains the designation of a Contracting Party that has made the declaration referred to in paragraph (1)(a)(ii) it shall also contain indications concerning the identity of the creator of the industrial design." See discussion of § 1.1021(d). Relevant documents, including the implementing legislation (title I of the PLTIA), Senate Committee Reports, and the Transmittal Letter, are available on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/int_protect/index.jsp. This Web site also contains a link to WIPO's Website, which makes available relevant treaty documents, currently at http://www.wipo.int/hague/en/legal_texts/. Discussion of Specific Rules The following is a discussion of the amendments to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41. Section 1.4: Section 1.4(a)(2) is amended to include a reference to the final rules relating to international design applications in subpart I. Section 1.5: Section 1.5(a) is amended to provide that the international registration number may be used on correspondence directed to the Office to identify an international design application. The international registration number is the number assigned by the International Bureau upon registration of the international design in the International Register. See Rule 15 of the Regulations. Section 1.6: Section 1.6(d)(3) is amended to include the filing of an international design application among the correspondence for which facsimile transmission is not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a receipt date. This is consistent with the treatment of the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 95 

 filing of national patent applications and international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT"). Section 1.6(d)(4) is amended to prohibit the filing of color drawings by facsimile in an international design application. This is consistent with the treatment of color drawings in national applications and international applications under the PCT. Section 1.6(d)(6) is amended to change "a patent application" to "an application" to clearly prohibit the submission of correspondence by facsimile in an international design application that is subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5.1 through 5.5. Section 1.8: Section 1.8(a)(2)(i) is amended to add a new paragraph (K) to include the filing of an international design application among the correspondence that will not receive benefit from a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission. See discussion of § 1.6(d)(3), supra. Section 1.9: Sections 1.9(a)(1) and (a)(3) are amended to include in the definitions of "national application" and "nonprovisional application," respectively, an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement for which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 385, added by section 101(a) of the PLTIA, an international design application that designates the United States has the effect from its filing date under 35 U.S.C. 384 of an application for patent filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. 126 Stat. at 1529. The filing date of an international design application is, subject to review, the international registration date. See discussion of § 1.1023, infra. Under Article 10, the International Bureau will send a copy of the international registration to each designated office after publication (Article 10(3)) or, upon notification by the Contracting Party, immediately after international registration (Article 10(5)). Consequently, the Office will receive a copy of the international registration pursuant to Article 10 only if the United States has been designated. The Office notes that, while the definition of "nonprovisional application" in § 1.9(a)(3) may include international applications under the PCT and international design applications under the Hague Agreement satisfying certain conditions, neither the PCT, the Hague Agreement, nor U.S. law provides for provisional international applications or international design applications. Sections 1.9(l) and 1.9(m) are added to define "Hague Agreement," "Hague Agreement Article," "Hague Agreement Regulations," and "Hague Agreement Rule" as used in chapter I of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). Section 1.9(n) is added to define "international design application" as used in chapter I of title 37 of the CFR. Section 1.9(n) further provides that unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to "design application" or "application for a design patent" in chapter I of the CFR includes an international design application that designates the United States. Section 1.14: Section 1.14(a)(1) introductory text is amended to add a reference to added paragraph (j) concerning international design applications. Section 1.14(a)(1)(ii) is amended to replace the reference to "abandoned application that has been published as a patent application publication" with a reference to "abandoned published application." This change is consistent with the language of § 1.11(a) to which § 1.14(a)(1)(ii) refers. In addition, the term "published application" is defined in § 1.9(c) as "an application for patent which has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)." Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 374 and 35 U.S.C. 390, international applications and international design applications that designate the United States and are published under the respective treaty, "shall be deemed a publication under section 122(b)." Accordingly, a published application for purposes of § 1.14 will include a publication by the International Bureau of either an international application under the PCT or an international design application under the Hague
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 96 

 Agreement that designates the United States. Access to such published applications is permitted under PCT Article 30 and Hague Agreement Article 10. In contrast, the term "patent application publication" refers to a publication by the Office under § 1.215. The Office will not publish international design applications under § 1.215 (see § 1.211), as international design applications are published in English by the International Bureau under the Hague Agreement. See Hague Agreement Article 10(3) and Rule 6(2). See also 35 U.S.C. 390, added by the PLTIA, deeming a publication under the Hague Agreement as a publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). 126 Stat. at 1531. In addition, the Office does not publish applications for design patents under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See § 1.211(b). Sections 1.14(a)(1)(iv)-(vi) are amended to include a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States among the publications for which access to an unpublished application may be obtained. Section 1.14(a)(1)(iv) is amended to permit access to the file contents of an unpublished abandoned application where the application is identified in the publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, or where benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Section 1.14(a)(1)(v) is amended to permit access to the file contents of an unpublished pending application where benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Section 1.14(a)(1)(vi) is amended to permit access to a copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. Section 1.14(a)(1)(vii) is amended consistent with amendments to §§ 1.14(a)(1)(iv)-(vi). Section 1.14(a)(2)(iv) is amended to add a reference to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386, as provided by the PLTIA. 126 Stat. 1529- 30. Section 1.14(j) is added to set forth the conditions under which the records of an international design application maintained by the Office will be made available to the public. Section 1.14(j)(1) provides that, with respect to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as a designated office for national processing, the records associated with the international design application may be made available as provided under §§ 1.14(a)-(i). Under Hague Agreement Article 10(5), the Office is to keep international design registrations confidential until publication of the international registration by the International Bureau. This provision does not alter the Office's long-standing practice to make application files available to the public to satisfy the constitutionally mandated quid pro quo requiring public disclosure of patented inventions. See United States ex rel. Pollok v. Hall, 1889 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 582, 48 O.G. 1263 (D.C. 1888) (recognizing that the rights of exclusivity and confidentiality stem from Article I, Section 8, clause 8, of the Constitution in holding that the Office must make available to the public an abandoned application specifically referenced in a patent); P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 97 

 Act, reprinted in 75 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 161, 196-97 (1993) (as background discussion to the addition of section 122 to the 1952 Patent Act, noting that for nearly 100 years the Office has had regulations requiring that applications be maintained confidential while recognizing public accessibility when an abandoned application is referenced in a later issued patent); see also Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Co. et al. v. Siemans, 1898 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 220, 222, 85 O.G. 290 (Comm'r Pat. 1898); In re Reed Manufacturing Co., 1900 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 140, 92 O.G. 2001 (Comm'r Pat. 1900); Ex parte Lewis and Unger, 1903 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 303, 106 O.G. 543 (Comm'r Pat. 1903); In re Doman, 1905 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 101, 115 O.G. 804 (Comm'r Pat. 1905). As a designated office, the Office will establish a file for national processing upon receipt of the published international registration from the International Bureau. In such cases, the records of the application file will be available pursuant to §§ 1.14(a)(ii)- (iii). The provisions of § 1.14(j)(1) provide for access to such international design applications maintained by the Office for national processing, thus treating international design applications the same as regular national applications. Section 1.14(j)(2) provides that, with respect to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as an office of indirect filing (§ 1.1002), the records of the international design application may be available under § 1.14(j)(1) when they are contained in the file of the international design application maintained by the Office for national processing. Also, if benefit of the international design application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) in a U.S. patent or published application, the file contents of the application may be made available to the public, or the file contents of the application, a copy of the application-as- filed, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will place the application filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing in the file used for national processing as a designated office. Consequently, the records maintained by the Office as an office of indirect filing may be available where the records are part of the file maintained by the Office as a designated office and are available pursuant to § 1.14(j)(1). The records maintained by the Office as an office of the indirect filing may also be available where benefit to the international design application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) in a U.S. patent or published application. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 386(c) and 35 U.S.C. 388, applicants may claim benefit to an international design application that designates the United States provided the application claiming benefit of the international design mapplication is filed before the date of withdrawal, renunciation, cancellation, or abandonment of the international application, either generally or as to the United States. Section 1.16: Sections 1.16(b), (l), and (p) are amended to clarify that the design application fees specified therein are applicable only to design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (i.e., an application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16). The other provisions of § 1.16 are not changed. Section 1.17: Section 1.17(f) is amended to specify the fee for filing a petition under § 1.1023 to review the filing date of an international design application in the United States. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 384, which provides that the filing date of an international application in the United States is the effective registration date (35 U.S.C. 384(a)), and authorizes the Director to establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to review the filing date, which may result in a determination that the application has a filing date in the United States other than the effective registration date (35 U.S.C. 384(b)). 126 Stat. at 1529. The review procedure authorized under 35 U.S.C. 384(b) is set forth in § 1.1023, discussed infra, which requires, inter alia, the fee set forth in § 1.17(f). Under 35 U.S.C. 389(b), added by the PLTIA, all questions of procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States, unless required by the Hague Agreement
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 98 

 and Hague Agreement Regulations, shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. 126 Stat. at 1530. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority under 35 U.S.C. 389(b), the fee for filing a petition to review the filing date of an international design application under § 1.1023 is the same as the fee for filing a petition to accord a filing date in a national application (see § 1.53(e)). Section 1.17(g) is amended to specify the fee for filing a petition under § 1.55(g) for acceptance of a belated certified copy of a foreign application in a design application. See discussion of § 1.55(g). Section 1.17(i)(1) is amended to remove the processing fee under § 1.55 for entry of a priority claim or certified copy of a foreign application after payment of the issue fee. See discussion of § 1.55(g). Section 1.17(m) is amended to set forth the fee for filing a petition to excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in an international design application. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 387 to provide that an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application may be excused as to the United States upon a showing satisfactory to the Director of unintentional delay and under such conditions, including a requirement for payment of the fee specified in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7), as may be prescribed by the Director. 126 Stat. at 1530. The conditions for excusing an applicant's failure to act within the prescribed time limits in an international design application are set forth in § 1.1051, discussed infra. These requirements include, inter alia, the requirement to pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(m). The fee set forth in § 1.17(m) does not include a micro entity amount as this fee is set under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) as amended by section 202(b)(1)(A) of the PLTIA, and not section 10(a) of the AIA. Section 10(b) of the AIA provides that the micro entity discount applies to fees set under section 10(a) of the AIA. See Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 316-17 (2011). The Office will consider including a micro entity amount in § 1.17(m) in the event that patent fees are again set or adjusted under section 10(a) of the AIA. Section 1.17(t) is amended to specify the fee for filing a petition under § 1.1052 to convert an international design application to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See discussion of § 1.1052, infra. The petition fee is not being set pursuant to section 10(a) of the AIA. Rather, the Office is setting this fee in this rulemaking pursuant to its authority under 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2), which provides that fees for all processing, services, or materials relating to patents not specified in 35 U.S.C. 41 are to be set at amounts to recover the estimated average cost to the Office of such processing, services, or materials. The Office uses an Activity Based Information ("ABI") methodology to determine the estimated average costs (or expense) on a per process, service, or material basis including the particular processes and services addressed in this rulemaking. The ABI analysis includes compiling the Office costs for a specified activity, including the direct-expense (e.g., direct personnel compensation, contract services, maintenance and repairs, communications, utilities, equipment, supplies, materials, training, rent, and program-related information technology ("IT") automation), an appropriate allocation of allocated direct expense (e.g., rent, program-related automation, and personnel compensation benefits such as medical insurance and retirement), and an appropriate allocation of allocated indirect expense (e.g., general financial and human resource management, nonprogram specific IT automation, and general Office expenses). The direct expense for an activity plus its allocated direct expense and allocated indirect expense is the "fully burdened" expense for that activity. The "fully burdened" expense for an activity is then divided by production measures (number of that activity completed) to arrive at the fully burdened per-unit cost for that activity. The cost for a particular process is then determined by ascertaining which activities occur for the process and how often each such activity occurs for the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 99 

 process. If historical activity level information is not available for a particular fee, then ABI uses a cost build-up approach using position, salary, and burdening rate data to determine the full cost of work related to a particular fee. The ABI analysis in this rulemaking is based upon fiscal year 2012 expense. The prospective fees are calculated using the ABI expense and applying adjustment factors to estimate the cost in fiscal year 2015 expense, as fiscal year 2015 may be the next opportunity to consider whether to revisit the fees under section 10(a) of the AIA. This analysis uses 2012 expense as a proxy and adjusts for yearly inflation in the out-years. The Office is estimating the fiscal year 2015 cost in this rulemaking by using the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ("CPI-U") for fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, as the CPI-U is a reasonable basis for determining the change in Office costs between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2015. The individual CPI-U increases for each fiscal year are multiplied together to obtain a cumulative CPI-U from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015. The actual CPI-U increase for fiscal year 2013 was 1.4 percent. The CPI-U increase for fiscal year 2014 is forecasted to be 1.6 percent. The CPI- U increase for fiscal year 2015 is forecasted to be 2.0 percent. See Fiscal Year 2015 Analytical Perspectives, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/ spec.pdf. Thus, the estimated fiscal year 2015 cost amounts are calculated by multiplying the actual expense amount for fiscal year 2012 by 1.051 (1.014 multiplied by 1.016 multiplied by 1.020 equals 1.051). The estimated fiscal year 2015 cost amounts are then rounded to the nearest ten dollars by applying standard arithmetic rules so that the resulting fee amounts will be convenient for international design application users. The processing of a petition to convert an international design application to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 involves review and preparation of a decision for the petition. An estimate of the number of hours required for a GS-12, Step 5, attorney to review the petition and draft a decision is two hours. The ABI analysis indicates that the estimated fully burdened expense during fiscal year 2012 to review and prepare a decision for the petition is $172 ($86 fully burdened labor cost per hour multiplied by 2). Thus, the Office estimates that the fiscal year prospective unit cost to review the petition and draft a decision, using the estimated CPI-U increase for fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, is $181 ($172 multiplied by 1.051), which, when rounded to the nearest ten dollars, is a petition fee for conversion of $180. Additional information concerning the Office's analysis of the estimated fiscal year 2015 costs for converting an international design application to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 is available upon request. Section 1.18: Section 1.18(b)(3) is added to provide that an issue fee paid through the International Bureau in an international design application designating the United States shall be in the amount specified on the Web site of WIPO, currently available at http://www.wipo.int/hague, at the time the fee is paid. The option for applicants to pay the issue fee through the International Bureau is provided for in Hague Agreement Rule 12(3)(c) and is in lieu of paying the issue fee under § 1.18(b)(1). Article 7(2) permits a Contracting Party to declare that the prescribed designation fee shall be replaced by an individual designation fee, whose amounts can be changed in further declarations. The International Bureau accepts payment only in Swiss currency (see Hague Agreement Rule 28(1)) and all fee amounts specified on the WIPO Web site are in Swiss currency. Section 1.25: Section 1.25(b) is amended to provide that international design application fees may be charged to a deposit account. International design application fees are set forth in § 1.1031. Section 1.25(b) is also amended to provide that a general authorization to charge fees in an international design application set forth in § 1.1031 will only be effective for the transmittal fee (§ 1.1031(a)). The international fees set forth in § 1.1031, other than the transmittal fee set forth in § 1.1031(a), are not required to be paid to the Office as an office of indirect filing. See
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 100 

 § 1.1031(d). Section 1.27: The introductory text of § 1.27(c)(3) is amended to provide that the payment, by any party, of the small entity first part of the individual designation fee for the United States to the International Bureau will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. The change to § 1.27(c)(3) will permit international design applicants to establish small entity status for the purpose of the United States by payment to the International Bureau of the small entity first part of the individual designation fee for the United States. Section 1.29: Section 1.29(e) is amended to provide that a micro entity certification filed in an international design application may be signed by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.1041 before the International Bureau where the micro entity certification is filed with the International Bureau. Section 1.32: The introductory text of § 1.32(d) is amended to add a reference to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), as provided by the PLTIA. 126 Stat. 1529-30. Thus, a power of attorney from a prior national application for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) in a continuing international design application may have effect in the continuing application if a copy of the power of attorney from the prior application is filed in the continuing application, subject to the conditions set forth in § 1.32(d). Section 1.41: Section 1.41(f) is added to set forth the inventorship in an international design application designating the United States. Specifically, the inventorship of an international design application designating the United States is the creator or creators set forth in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Section 1.41(f) further provides that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. Section 1.46: The introductory text of § 1.46(b) is amended to provide that if an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 or a nonprovisional international design application is applied for by a person other than the inventor under § 1.46(a) (i.e., the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 118), that person must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). The amendment does not change the current practice with respect to national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, where a person seeking to become an applicant under § 1.46 in the national phase was not named as an applicant for the United States in the international phase. In such case, that person must comply with the requirements under § 1.46(c), including the requirements of §§ 3.71 and 3.73, to be an applicant in the national phase. The amendment treats international design applications in the same manner as international applications under the PCT. See discussion of § 1.1011(b), infra (regarding who may be an applicant for an international design application designating the United States). Section 1.46(c) is amended to provide for the correction or update in the name of the applicant in paragraph (c)(1) and a change in the applicant in paragraph (c)(2). Section 1.46(c)(1) corresponds to the first sentence of paragraph (c) of former § 1.46 and further provides that a change in the name of the applicant under § 1.46 recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii) will be effective to change the name of the applicant in a nonprovisional international design application. Article 16(1)(ii) provides for recording in the International Register by the International Bureau of a change in the name of the holder. Under Article 16(2), such recording has the same effect as if made in the office of each of the designated Contracting Parties. Thus, where the applicant in a nonprovisional international design application under § 1.46 is the holder of the international registration, correction or update of the applicant's name may be made through the mechanism under Article 16(1)(ii). Section
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 101 

 1.46(c)(1) also clarifies that a correction or update of the name of the applicant using an application data sheet must be made in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2), which requires that the information that is changed be indicated by underlining, strike-though, or brackets, as appropriate. Section 1.46(c)(2) corresponds to the second sentence of paragraph (c) of former § 1.46 and provides that any request to change the applicant under § 1.46 after an original applicant has been specified must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2) and comply with §§ 3.71 and 3.73. The language of § 1.46(c)(2) is amended to clarify that any change in the applicant under § 1.46 once an applicant has been specified requires identification of the new applicant in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2) and comply with §§ 3.71 and 3.73. There was some confusion with respect to the proper way to change the applicant where (1) the inventor was the original applicant or (2) the applicant is being changed from a second (or subsequent) applicant to a new applicant. Specifying the applicant in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 may be accomplished either by the person who has made the application or by the Office where the applicant has not been specified by the time the filing receipt is issued. The Office previously indicated that the inventors may be considered the applicant where an applicant has not otherwise been specified and that compliance with §§ 3.71 and 3.73 is required for any change in the applicant from the inventors. See Changes To Implement the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 48775, 48785 (Aug. 14, 2012). In an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the original applicant specified is the person identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application. In a nonprovisional international design application, the original applicant specified is the person identified as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Section 1.46 does not govern changes in inventorship. Rather, any request to add or delete an inventor, or to correct or update the name of an inventor, must be made in accordance with the provisions of § 1.48. Section 1.53: The introductory text of § 1.53(b) is amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), as added by the PLTIA. Thus, § 1.53(b) provides that a continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78. Section 1.53(c)(4) is amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and 386(c), as added by the PLTIA, thus making clear that a provisional application is not entitled to a right of priority or to the benefit of the filing date of an international design application. Section 1.53(d)(1)(ii) is amended to provide that a continued prosecution application ("CPA") of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed where the prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i). Section 1.55: Section 1.55 is revised to provide for a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386 with respect to international design applications and for other matters, as discussed below. In addition, as to the applicability dates for certain provisions in existing rules, this final rule makes those applicability dates more accessible by stating them directly in the body of those rules. In particular, the requirements of § 1.55 set forth in the following final rules have been consolidated in this final rule: Changes To Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62399 (Oct. 21, 2013) (changes to § 1.55 made therein applicable to any patent application filed before, on, or
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 102 

 after December 18, 2013, except for the changes to § 1.55(f), which is applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013); Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 FR 11024 (Feb. 14, 2013) (applicable to any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363 on or after March 16, 2013); Changes To Implement the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 48776 (Aug. 14, 2012) (applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012); and Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57024 (Sept. 20, 2000) (applicable to patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000). Section 1.55(a) is amended to provide that an applicant in a nonprovisional application may claim priority to one or more prior foreign applications under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and (b) and this section. Section 1.55(b) is amended to clarify which application is the "subsequent application" for purposes of § 1.55. Section 1.55(b) provides that the nonprovisional application must be: Filed not later than twelve months (six months in the case of a design application) after the date on which the foreign application was filed, subject to paragraph (c) of the section (a subsequent application); or entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of the section. Thus, the subsequent application in either § 1.55(b)(1) or (b)(2) is the application required to be filed within the period set forth in § 1.55(b)(1). For purposes of § 1.55(b)(2), the subsequent application may be a nonprovisional application, an international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States. Section 1.55(c) is amended to provide for restoration of priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b). Restoration of the right of priority is provided for under 35 U.S.C. 119(a), as amended by title II of the PLTIA. 126 Stat. 1534. Section 1.55 was previously amended to implement the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119, as amended by title II of the PLTIA. See Changes To Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62399 (Oct. 21, 2013). Under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and (b), entitlement to priority to a prior application shall be "[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172 . . . ." Consequently, § 1.55(c) is amended in this final rule to provide that restoration of the right of priority is available for priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and (b). Section 1.55(c) is also amended to provide that a petition to restore the right of priority filed on or after May 13, 2015 (the effective date of this final rule) must be filed in the subsequent application or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Office has received inquiries from the public asking in which application the petition to restore the right of priority under § 1.55(c) must be filed where there is a chain of applications claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to the application for which filing was unintentionally delayed. The amendment to § 1.55(c) is intended to provide clarification by requiring that, on or after May 13, 2015, a petition to restore the right of priority under this paragraph be filed in the subsequent application or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. If a petition under § 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority is granted, a further petition under § 1.55(c) is not required in an application entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of the subsequent application for
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 103 

 which the right of priority was restored. Requiring the filing of the petition under § 1.55(c) in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, when the subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application, is appropriate because the Office may not have an application file established for the subsequent application. This would occur, for example, where an international application designating the United States was filed in a foreign Receiving office and the applicant files a continuation of the international application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) rather than entering the national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371. Nevertheless, the statement required under § 1.55(c)(3) must still relate to the unintentional delay in filing the subsequent application, i.e., the international application, in such instance. Section 1.55(e) is amended to provide that unless such claim is accepted in accordance with the provisions of § 1.55(e), any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or 386(b) not presented in the manner required by § 1.55(d) or (m) during pendency and within the time period provided by § 1.55(d) (if applicable) is considered to have been waived. Section 1.55(e) is also amended to provide for the acceptance of a delayed priority claim considered to have been waived under § 1.55 and to provide for acceptance of an unintentionally delayed priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or 386(b). 35 U.S.C. 119(b), amended in section 4503 of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA), provides in paragraph (b)(1) that "[n]o application for patent shall be entitled to this right of priority unless a claim is filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number on that foreign application, the intellectual property authority or country in or for which the application was filed, and the date of filing the application, at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director." See Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999). 35 U.S.C. 119(b), amended under the AIPA, further provides, in paragraph (b)(2) that "[t]he Director may consider the failure of the applicant to file a timely claim for priority as a waiver of any such claim. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under this section." Id. Section 4503 of the AIPA applies "only to applications (including international applications designating the United States) filed on or after [November 29, 2000]." See Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1757. 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(2) was subsequently amended under title II of the PLTIA to provide for the payment of the fee specified in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7). 126 Stat. 1536. Pursuant to the authority under 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(2), the Office established procedures to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority in utility applications. See Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57024 (Sept. 20, 2000). However, no procedures were established for accepting an unintentionally delayed priority claim in a design application. The change to § 1.55(e) makes the petition procedure therein applicable to design applications, thus according design applicants the same remedy available to applicants in utility applications. Section 1.55(f) is amended to provide for an exception under § 1.55(h) to the requirement for a certified copy of the prior foreign application. See discussion of § 1.55(h), infra. Section 1.55(g) is amended to provide that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under § 1.55(e) or (f) or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. MPEP 216.01 provides for the submission of a request for certificate of correction under § 1.323 along with,
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 104 

 where applicable, a petition under § 1.55(e), to perfect a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f) in a patent under certain conditions, including the case where the certified copy was not in the application that issued as a patent but was filed in a parent application. Where the conditions set forth in MPEP 216.01 do not apply, perfection of the claim for foreign priority generally required the filing of a reissue application. See MPEP 1417. Section 1.55(g), as amended in this final rule, eliminates the need in many instances to file a reissue application in order to perfect a claim for foreign priority by allowing the certified copy of the foreign application required under § 1.55 to be filed in the application with a petition under § 1.55(f) or as provided in § 1.55(g), together with the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. In addition, where a priority claim under § 1.55 was not timely made, § 1.55(g) as amended in this final rule allows the priority claim and certified copy required under § 1.55 to be filed pursuant to a petition under § 1.55(e) even if the application is not pending (e.g., a patented application). Furthermore, where the priority claim required under § 1.55 was timely filed in the application but was not included on the patent because the requirement under § 1.55 for a certified copy was not satisfied, the patent may be corrected to include the priority claim via a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323, accompanied by a grantable petition under § 1.55(f) or (g), without the need for a petition under § 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim. Section 1.55(g) is also amended to remove the requirement for the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i) where the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid. Section 1.55(g), however, retains the provision of former § 1.55(g) that if the claim for priority or the certified copy is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323. Section 1.55(h) provides that the requirement in § 1.55(f) and (g) for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified in the reissue application as containing the certified copy. Section 1.55(h) further provides that the requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will also be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. The exception under § 1.55(h) to the requirement to provide the certified copy of the foreign application is in accord with long-standing Office policy. See, e.g., MPEP 215(III) (9th ed., Mar. 2014). Sections 1.55(i)-(l) in this final rule correspond to the provisions of paragraphs (h)-(k) of former § 1.55. Section 1.55(i)(4) is also amended, consistent with Office practice, to provide that the request under that paragraph may be filed with a petition under § 1.55(f). See AIA Frequently Asked Questions, Question FITF3500, http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs_first_inventor.jsp. Section 1.55(j)(2) is amended to provide for a time period to submit the copy of the foreign application and separate cover sheet in a national stage application to include the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)) or four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage. Section 1.55(j)(2) is also amended to provide for the submission of the copy of the foreign application and separate cover sheet with a petition under
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 105 

 § 1.55(f). Id. Nonprovisional international design applications are also excluded from the transition provision of § 1.55(k), as such applications can only be filed on or after the date the treaty takes effect as to the United States. Section 1.55(m) sets forth the time for filing a priority claim and certified copy of a foreign application in an international design application designating the United States. Section 1.55(m) provides that in an international design application designating the United States, the claim for priority may be made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations. Section 1.55(m) further provides that in a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim, unless made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations, must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)) identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim and certified copy must be furnished in accordance with the time period and other conditions set forth in § 1.55(g). Section 1.55(o) provides, in accordance with the effective date provision of title I of the PTLIA, that the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon. 126 Stat. 1532. Section 1.55(p) provides that the time periods set forth in this section are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and § 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4). Section 1.55(p) in this final rule corresponds to the provisions contained in paragraphs (b) and (l) of former § 1.55 and further provide that the time periods are subject to Hague Agreement Rule 4(4). Rule 4(4) provides that if a period expires on a day on which the International Bureau or the office concerned is not open to the public, the period shall expire on the first subsequent day on which the International Bureau or the office concerned is open to the public. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 386(b), which provides: "[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172 and the treaty and the Regulations, an international design application designating the United States shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior foreign application . . . ." 126 Stat. at 1529. Thus, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b), the priority period in an international design application designating the United States is subject to Rule 4(4). Section 1.57: Section 1.57(a)(4) is amended to change the reference from "§ 1.55(h)" to "§ 1.55(i)" in light of the changes to § 1.55 in this final rule. The introductory text of § 1.57(b) is amended to include a reference to priority and benefit claims to international design applications. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 386 to provide for a right of priority or benefit with respect to an international design application. 126 Stat. at 1529-30. Accordingly, the introductory text of § 1.57(b) is amended to provide for incorporation by reference to an inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings based on a claim for priority under § 1.55 or benefit claim under § 1.78 to an international design application present upon filing. Section 1.57(b)(4) is also added to provide that any amendment to an international design application pursuant to § 1.57(b)(1) shall be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application and that no request under § 1.57(b) to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application. Section 1.57(b)(4) is similar to § 1.57(b)(2), which applies to international applications. Section 1.63: Section 1.63(d)(1) is amended to add references to § 1.1021(d) and 35 U.S.C. 386(c) so as to provide that a newly
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 106 

 executed oath or declaration under § 1.63, or substitute statement under § 1.64, is not required under §§ 1.51(b)(2) and 1.53(f), or under §§ 1.497 and 1.1021(d), for an inventor in a continuing application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with § 1.78 of an earlier- filed application, provided that an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, or substitute statement under § 1.64, was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application and a copy of such oath, declaration, or substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed is submitted in the continuing application. Title I of the PLTIA amends 35 U.S.C. 115(g)(1) (as amended by the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act) by adding a reference to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). See 126 Stat. 1531. The amendment to § 1.63(d)(1) is consistent with this statutory change. Section 1.76: Section 1.76(a) is amended to provide for the filing of an application data sheet in a nonprovisional international design application and to include a reference to priority and benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386 with respect to international design applications. Section 1.76(b)(5) is amended to provide for domestic benefit information pertaining to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Section 1.76(b)(6) is amended to provide that the foreign priority information section of the application data sheet may include the intellectual property authority rather than country of filing. This change is for consistency with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and § 1.55. Section 1.78: Section 1.78 is amended, as discussed below, to provide for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to international design applications designating the United States. In addition, as to the applicability dates for certain provisions in existing rules, this final rule makes those applicability dates more accessible by stating them directly in the body of those rules. In particular, the requirements of § 1.78 set forth in the following final rules have been consolidated in this final rule: Changes To Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62399 (Oct. 21, 2013) (applicable to any patent application filed before, on, or after December 18, 2013); Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 FR 11024 (Feb. 14, 2013) (applicable to any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363 on or after March 16, 2013); Changes To Implement the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 48776 (Aug. 14, 2012) (applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012); and Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57024 (Sept. 20, 2000) (applicable to patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000). Section 1.78(a)(1) is amended to clarify which application is the "subsequent application" for purposes of § 1.78. Section 1.78(a)(1) provides that the nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or international application designating the United States must be: Filed not later than twelve months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, subject to paragraph (b) of the section (a subsequent application); or entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the section. Thus, the subsequent application in either § 1.78(a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) is the application required to be filed within the period set forth in § 1.78(a)(1)(i). For purposes of § 1.78(a)(1)(ii), the subsequent application may be a nonprovisional application or an international application designating the United States. Section 1.78(b) is amended to provide, in paragraph (b)(1), that a petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application under this paragraph filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application. A similar change was made to § 1.55. See discussion of § 1.55(c), supra. If a petition under § 1.78(b) to restore benefit of a provisional application is granted, a further
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 107 

 petition under § 1.78(b) is not required in an application entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) of the subsequent application for which benefit of the provisional application was restored. The introductory text of § 1.78(d) is amended to provide for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to international design applications designating the United States. Section 1.78(d)(1)(ii) provides that the prior-filed application to which benefit is claimed may be an international design application entitled to a filing date in accordance with § 1.1023 and designating the United States. Section 1.78(d)(2) is amended to provide that the reference required under this paragraph to a prior filed international design application designating the United States may identify the international design application by international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. Where the international design application becomes a nonprovisional application, which occurs when the Office receives a copy of the international registration from the International Bureau pursuant to Article 10 of the Hague Agreement (see § 1.9), the required reference can identify the nonprovisional application number instead of the international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. Identifying the prior international design application by the nonprovisional application number is preferable to the Office and simpler for applicants. Section 1.78(d)(3) is amended to provide, in paragraph (d)(3)(i), that the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and § 1.78(d)(2) must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application. Section 1.78(d)(3)(ii) sets forth the time period for submitting the reference required under 35 U.S.C. 120 and § 1.78(d)(2) in a later- filed application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (excluding design applications) and in a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and substantially corresponds to the provisions contained in paragraph (d)(3) of former § 1.78. Section 1.78(d)(3)(iii) provides that, except as provided in § 1.78(e), the failure to timely submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and § 1.78(d)(2) is considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the prior-filed application. The changes to § 1.78(d)(3) in this final rule would make the procedures under § 1.78(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim applicable to design applications and thus accord applicants in design applications the same remedy for accepting an unintentionally delayed benefit claim that is available to applicants in utility applications. The establishment of such procedures is provided for in 35 U.S.C. 120, as amended in section 4503 of the AIPA. See discussion of § 1.55(e), supra (regarding acceptance of an unintentionally delay claim of priority in a design application). Section 1.78(d)(6) is amended to exclude nonprovisional international design applications, as such applications can only be filed on or after the date the Hague Agreement takes effect as to the United States. Section 1.78(d)(7) is added to provide that where benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application or an international design application, which designates but did not originate in the United States, the Office may require a certified copy of such application together with an English translation thereof if filed in another language. The authority to require a certified copy of an international design application that designates the United States but did not originate in the United States, and an English translation thereof, is provided in 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Similar authority with respect to international applications that designate the United States but do not originate in the United States is provided in 35 U.S.C. 365(c). Since international applications are published under PCT Article 21(2) and international design applications are published under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), the Office would not ordinarily require a certified copy of the international application or
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 108 

 international design application pursuant to § 1.78(d)(7). Rather, the Office foresees use of § 1.78(d)(7) primarily in instances where the international application or international design application did not publish under the respective treaty or where there is a question as to the content of the disclosure of the application as of its filing date and the certified copy and any English translation are needed to determine entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of the international application or international design application in order to, for example, overcome a prior art reference. Section 1.78(e) is amended to provide for acceptance of a delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) to a prior filed international application designating the United States pursuant to the petition procedure set forth therein. Section 1.78(i) is added to provide that where a petition under paragraphs (b), (c), or (e) of this section is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then such petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as being filed in the international application. This provision is added because, in such instances, the Office does not have an application file established for the international application. Section 1.78(j) provides, in accordance with the effective date provision of title I of the PTLIA, that benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon. 126 Stat. 1532. Section 1.78(k) in this final rule corresponds to the provisions contained in paragraphs (h) and (a)(1) of former § 1.78 and further provides that the time periods are subject to Hague Agreement Rule 4(4). Section 1.84: Section 1.84(a)(2) is amended to eliminate the requirement for a petition and fee set forth in § 1.17(h) to accept color drawings or photographs in design applications. The requirements that the design application include the number of sets of color drawings required by § 1.84(a)(2)(ii) and that the specification contain the reference to the color drawings or photographs set forth in § 1.84(a)(2)(iii) are maintained. The reference set forth in § 1.84(a)(2)(iii) provides notice to the public should the design application issue as a patent that the patented design is in color. In addition, the petition requirement is maintained for utility patent applications. Section 1.84(a)(2) is also amended to reflect current requirements for color drawings submitted through EFS-Web. See Legal Framework for Electronic Filing System - Web (EFS-Web), 74 FR 55200, 55208 (Oct. 27, 2009) ("The requirement for three (3) sets of color drawings under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii) is not applicable to color drawings submitted via EFS-Web. Therefore, only one set of such color drawings is necessary when filing via EFS-Web."). Section 1.84(y) is amended to include a cross reference to international design application reproductions in § 1.1026. Section 1.85: Section 1.85(c) is amended to provide that if an amended drawing submitted under § 1.121(d) in a nonprovisional international design application does not comply with § 1.1026 at the time an application is allowed, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a three-month period of time from the mail date of the notice of allowability within which the applicant must file a corrected drawing to avoid abandonment. Section 1.97: Section 1.97(b) is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), and adding a new paragraph (b)(5) to provide that an information disclosure statement may be filed within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) in an international design application. An information disclosure statement may also be submitted with the international design application. See Hague Agreement Rule 7(5)(g)
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 109 

 ("The international application may be accompanied by a statement that identifies information known by the applicant to be material to the eligibility for protection of the industrial design concerned."). Section 1.105: The introductory text of § 1.105(a)(1) is amended to make a requirement for information under § 1.105 applicable to international design applications and to clarify that the requirement under § 1.105 is applicable to a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding. Section 1.109: Section 1.109 is revised such that its definition of "effective filing date" is no longer restricted only to first inventor to file applications, but applies regardless of whether an application is a first to invent or a first inventor to file application. This does not change or affect the meaning of effective U.S. filing date when used in the MPEP to discuss the treatment of first to invent (pre-AIA) applications or the order of examination. Section 1.109(a)(2) is also amended to include, for purposes of determining the "effective filing date" for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent (other than a reissue application or reissued patent), a right of priority or benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 386. Title I of the PLTIA amends 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1)(B) (as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) to include, within the meaning of "effective filing date" for a claimed invention in a patent or application, the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority or the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 386. See 126 Stat. 1531. The amendment to § 1.109(a)(2) is consistent with the change to 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1)(B) as amended by title I of the PLTIA. Section 1.114: 35 U.S.C. 132(b), which provides for the request for continued examination practice set forth in § 1.114, was added to title 35, United States Code, in section 4403 of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA). See Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-561 (1999). With respect to international applications, section 4405(b)(1) of the AIPA provides that 35 U.S.C. 132(b) applies to "applications complying with section 371 of title 35, United States Code, that resulted from international applications filed on or after June 8, 1995." See 113 Stat. at 1501A-561. The Office recently revised its rules to permit applicants, including applicants in national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, to postpone filing the inventor's oath or declaration until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance (subject to certain conditions). See Changes to Implement the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 48776 (Aug. 14, 2012) (final rule). An international application, however, does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371 until the application includes the inventor's oath or declaration. See 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(4); see also 77 FR at 48777, 48780, 48795 (explaining that the inventor's oath or declaration is still required for a PCT international application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 371, notwithstanding the changes permitting applicants to postpone filing the inventor's oath or declaration until after a PCT international application enters the national stage). Thus, the Office is revising § 1.114(e)(3) to clarify that the request for continued examination practice set forth in § 1.114 added in section 4403 of the AIPA does not apply to an international application until the international application complies with 35 U.S.C. 371 (which requires the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration in the international application, as well as, for example, the basic national fee and an English language translation of the international application if filed in another language). Section 1.114(e) also is amended to provide that a request for continued examination may not be filed in an international design application, as there is no statutory provision to permit the filing of a request for continued examination in an international design application. Section 4405(b)(2) of the AIPA specifically excludes design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 from the provisions of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 110 

 35 U.S.C. 132(b), and there is no provision in the AIPA, PLTIA, or other legislative act making 35 U.S.C. 132(b) applicable to international design applications. Section 1.121: Section 1.121(d) is amended to provide for amendments to the drawings in a nonprovisional international design application and requires, inter alia, that any changes to the drawings be in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026. Section 1.130: Section 1.130(d) is amended to refer to the definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109, rather than the definition of "effective filing date" in 35 U.S.C. 100(i). The definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109 and 35 U.S.C. 100(i) are the same, and other rules of practice refer to definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109. See §§ 1.78, 1.110. Section 1.130(d) is also amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), added by title I of the PLTIA, concerning domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications that designate the United States. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), an application must comply with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, which include, inter alia, a requirement that the application contain a specific reference to the earlier application whose filing date is claimed. Section 1.131: Section 1.131(d) is amended to refer to the definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109, rather than the definition of "effective filing date" in 35 U.S.C. 100(i). The definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109 and 35 U.S.C. 100(i) are the same, and other rules of practice refer to definition of "effective filing date" in § 1.109. See §§ 1.78, 1.110. Section 1.131(d) is also amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), added by title I of the PLTIA, concerning domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications that designate the United States. Section 1.137: Section 1.137(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2) are amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c) concerning domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications that designate the United States. Section 1.155: Section 1.155 is amended to provide for expedited examination of an international design application that designates the United States. To qualify for expedited examination, § 1.155(a)(1) provides that the international design application must have been published pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Section 1.175: The introductory text of § 1.175(f)(1) is amended to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c) concerning domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications that designate the United States. Section 1.211: Section 1.211(b) is amended to provide that an international design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 38 shall not be published by the Office under § 1.211. International registrations are published by the International Bureau pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Hague Agreement. The international registration includes the data contained in the international design application and any reproduction of the industrial design. See Hague Agreement Rule 15(2). Section 1.312: The Office has decided not to amend § 1.312 in this final rule. Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Hague Agreement, where the second part of the individual U.S. designation fee (i.e., the issue fee) is paid to the International Bureau, the International Bureau is to "immediately upon its receipt" credit payment of such fee to the Office. The proposed rule would create an administrative burden in international design applications where the issue fee was paid to the International Bureau in order to determine the appropriate date to be used for amendment entry purposes. The Office may reconsider the need for such a provision after it gains more experience with the crediting of fees by the International Bureau to the Office. A new subpart I is added to provide for international and national processing of international design applications. Section 1.1001: Section 1.1001 is added to include definitions of terms used in subpart I.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 111 

 Section 1.1002: Section 1.1002 is added to indicate the major functions of the USPTO as an office of indirect filing. These include: (1) Receiving and according a receipt date to international design applications; (2) collecting and, when required, transmitting fees for processing international design applications; (3) determining compliance with applicable requirements of part 5 of chapter I of title 37 of the CFR; and (4) transmitting an international design application to the International Bureau, unless prescriptions concerning national security prevent the application from being transmitted. Section 1.1003: Section 1.1003 is added to indicate the major functions of the USPTO as a designated office. These include: (1) Accepting for national examination international design applications that satisfy the requirements of the Hague Agreement and Regulations; (2) performing an examination of the international design application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. chapter 16; and (3) communicating the results of examination to the International Bureau. Section 1.1004: Section 1.1004 is added to indicate the major functions of the International Bureau. These include: (1) Receiving international design applications directly from applicants and indirectly from an office of indirect filing; (2) collecting required fees and crediting designation fees to the accounts of the Contracting Parties concerned; (3) reviewing international design applications for compliance with prescribed requirements; (4) translating international design applications into the required languages for recordation and publication; (5) registering the international design in the International Register where the international design application complies with the applicable requirements; (6) publishing international registrations in the International Designs Bulletin; and (7) sending copies of the publication of the international registration to each designated office. Section 1.1005: Section 1.1005 is added, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to display the currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number for the collection of information in 37 CFR part 1, subpart I. Section 1.1005(a) provides that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the collection of information in this subpart has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0651-0075. Section 1.1005(b) provides that 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 Office of Management and Budget control number. Section 1.1005(b) further provides that § 1.1005 constitutes the display required by 44 U.S.C. 3512(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(i) for the collection of information under Office of Management and Budget control number 0651- 0075. Section 1.1011: Section 1.1011(a) is added to specify who may file an international design application through the USPTO. Under Article 3, any person that is a national of a State that is a Contracting Party or a State member of an intergovernmental organization that is a Contracting Party, or that has a domicile, a habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a Contracting Party, shall be entitled to file an international application. Under Article 4(1), the international application may be filed, at the option of the applicant, either directly with the International Bureau or through the office of the applicant's Contracting Party (i.e., an office of indirect filing). Title I of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 382(a), which provides: "[a]ny person who is a national of the United States, or has a domicile, a habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States, may file an international design application by submitting to the Patent and Trademark Office an application in such form, together with such fees, as may be prescribed by the Director." 126 Stat. at 1528. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 382(a) and Articles 3 and 4(1), § 1.1011(a) specifies that only
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 112 

 persons who are nationals of the United States or who have a domicile, a habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of the United States may file international design applications through the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Section 1.1011(b) is added to provide that, although the USPTO will accept international design applications filed by any person referred to in § 1.1011(a), an international design application designating the United States may be refused by the Office as a designated office if the applicant is not a person qualified under 35 U.S.C. chapter 11 to be an applicant. The PLTIA does not distinguish a person qualified to be an applicant for an international design application designating the United States from a person qualified to be an applicant in a national design application under 35 U.S.C. 171-173. See section 101(a) of the PLTIA, which adds: 35 U.S.C. 389(b) ("All questions of substance and, unless otherwise required by the treaty and Regulations, procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under chapter 16."); 35 U.S.C. 382(c) ("Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the provisions of chapter 16 shall apply."); and 35 U.S.C. 383 ("In addition to any requirements pursuant to chapter 16, the international design application shall contain. . . ."). 126 Stat. at 1528-30. Section 1.1012: Section 1.1012 is added to provide that, in order to file an international design application through the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing, the United States must be applicant's Contracting Party. Pursuant to Article 4, an international design application may be filed through the office of the "applicant's Contracting Party." The term "applicant's Contracting Party" is defined in Article 1(xiv) as "the Contracting Party or one of the Contracting Parties from which the applicant derives its entitlement to file an international application by virtue of satisfying, in relation to that Contracting Party, at least one of the conditions specified in Article 3; where there are two or more Contracting Parties from which the applicant may, under Article 3, derive its entitlement to file an international application, `applicant's Contracting Party' means the one which, among those Contracting Parties, is indicated as such in the international application." The indication of applicant's Contracting Party may be made in Box 4 of the application for international registration form (DM/1 form). Section 1.1021: Section 1.1021 is added to specify the contents of the international design application. Section 1.1021(a) specifies the mandatory contents of an international design application. The international design application must be in English, French, or Spanish. In addition, the application shall contain or be accompanied by: (1) A request for international registration under the Hague Agreement (Article 5(1)(i)); (2) the prescribed data concerning the applicant (Article 5(1)(ii) and Rule 7(3)(i) and (ii)); (3) the prescribed number of copies of a reproduction or, at the choice of the applicant, of several different reproductions of the industrial design that is the subject of the international design application, presented in the prescribed manner; however, where the industrial design is two-dimensional and a request for deferment of publication is made in accordance with Article 5(5), the international design application may, instead of containing reproductions, be accompanied by the prescribed number of specimens of the industrial design (Article 5(1)(iii)); (4) an indication of the product or products that constitute the industrial design or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used, as prescribed (Article 5(1)(iv) and Rule 7(3)(iv)); (5) an indication of the designated Contracting Parties (Article 5(1)(v)); (6) the prescribed fees (Article 5(1)(vi) and Rule 12(1)); (7) the Contracting Party or Parties in respect of which the applicant fulfills the conditions to be the holder of an international registration (Rule 7(3)(iii)); (8) the number of industrial designs included in the international application, which may not exceed 100, and the number of reproductions or specimens
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 113 

 of the industrial designs accompanying the international application (Rule 7(3)(v)); (9) the amount of the fees being paid and the method of payment or instructions to debit the required amount of fees to an account opened with the International Bureau and the identification of the party effecting the payment or giving the instructions (Rule 7(3)(vii)); and (10) an indication of applicant's Contracting Party as required under Rule 7(4)(a). Section 1.1021(b) sets forth additional mandatory contents that may be required by certain Contracting Parties. These include: (1) Elements referred to in Article 5(2)(b) required for a filing date in the designated Contracting Party for which a declaration was made by that Contracting Party; and (2) a statement, document, oath, or declaration required pursuant to Rule 8(1) by a designated Contracting Party. The elements that may be required under Article 5(2)(b) are: (i) Indications concerning the identity of the creator; (ii) a brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design; and (iii) a claim. Section 1.1021(c) identifies optional contents that the international design application may contain. These include: (1) Two or more industrial designs, subject to the prescribed conditions (Article 5(4) and Rule 7(7)); (2) a request for deferment of publication (Article 5(5) and Rule 7(5)(e)) or a request for immediate publication (Rule 17); (3) an element referred to in item (i) or (ii) of Article 5(2)(b) of the Hague Agreement or in Article 8(4)(a) of the 1960 Act even where that element is not required in consequence of a notification in accordance with Article 5(2)(a) of the Hague Agreement or in consequence of a requirement under Article 8(4)(a) of the 1960 Act (Rule 7(5)(a)); (4) the name and address of applicant's representative, as prescribed (Rule 7(5)(b)); (5) a claim of priority of one or more earlier filed applications in accordance with Article 6 and Rule 7(5)(c); (6) a declaration, for purposes of Article 11 of the Paris Convention, that the product or products that constitute the industrial design, or in which the industrial design is incorporated, have been shown at an official or officially recognized international exhibition, together with the place where the exhibition was held and the date on which the product or products were first exhibited there and, where less than all the industrial designs contained in the international application are concerned, the indication of those industrial designs to which the declaration relates or does not relate (Rule 7(5)(d)); (7) any declaration, statement, or other relevant indication as may be specified in the Administrative Instructions (Rule 7(5)(f)); (8) a statement that identifies information known by the applicant to be material to the eligibility for protection of the industrial design concerned (Rule 7(5)(g)); and (9) a proposed translation of any text matter contained in the international application for purposes of recording and publication (Rule 6(4)). Section 1.1021(d) sets forth additional required contents for an international design application that designates the United States. Section 1.1021(d) provides that, in addition to the mandatory requirements set forth in § 1.1021(a), an international design application that designates the United States shall contain or be accompanied by: (1) A claim (§§ 1.1021(b)(1)(iii) and 1.1025); (2) indications concerning the identity of the creator (i.e., the inventor, see § 1.9(d)) in accordance with Rule 11(1); and (3) the inventor's oath or declaration (§§ 1.63 and 1.64). Section 1.1021(d)(3) further provides that the requirements in §§ 1.63(b) and 1.64(b)(4) to identify each inventor by his or her legal name, mailing address, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from the mailing address, and the requirement in § 1.64(b)(2) to identify the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement, will be considered satisfied by the presentation of such information in the international design application prior to international registration. Under Article 5(2), a Contracting Party may require an international design application to contain certain additional elements, where the law of that Contracting Party, at the time it
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 114 

 becomes a party to the Hague Agreement, requires the application to contain such elements to be accorded a filing date. The elements set forth in Article 5(2) are: (1) Indications concerning the identity of the creator of the industrial design; (2) a brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design; and (3) a claim. Article 5(2) permits a Contracting Party to notify the Director General of the elements required in order for the application to be accorded a filing date. A claim is a filing date requirement for design applications in the United States. While title II of the PLTIA, in implementing the Patent Law Treaty, eliminated the requirement for a claim as a filing date requirement in utility applications, it did not eliminate the requirement for a claim as a filing date requirement for design applications. See section 202 of the PLTIA (amending 35 U.S.C. 171 to provide that "[t]he filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by [35 U.S.C.] 112 and any required drawings are filed"). 126 Stat. 1535. The specific wording of the claim shall be as prescribed in § 1.1025. Id. Consequently, an international design application that designates the United States but does not contain a claim will not be registered by the International Bureau in the international register and thus will not be entitled to a filing date in the United States. See 35 U.S.C. 384; Article 10(2). In such case, the International Bureau will invite the applicant to submit the claim within a prescribed time limit and will accord a date of international registration as of the date of receipt of the claim (assuming there are no other filing date defects). See Article 10(2)(b). Failure to timely submit the claim in response to the invitation by the International Bureau will result in the application being deemed not to contain the designation of the United States. See Article 8(2)(b). Section 1.1021(d) also requires an international design application designating the United States to contain indications concerning the identity of the inventor (i.e., creator) of the industrial design and the inventor's oath or declaration (§§ 1.63 or 1.64). The identity of the inventor and the inventor's oath or declaration are requirements applicable to design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 115; 35 U.S.C. 101. The PLTIA provides for parity in the treatment of international design applications designating the United States with design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16, except where otherwise provided by the PLTIA, Hague Agreement, or Regulations. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 389(b) ("All questions of substance and, unless otherwise required by the treaty and Regulations, procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under chapter 16."); 35 U.S.C. 382(c) ("Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the provisions of chapter 16 shall apply."); 35 U.S.C. 383 ("In addition to any requirements pursuant to chapter 16, the international design application shall contain. . . ."). 126 Stat. at 1528-30. See also discussion of Hague Agreement Rule 8, supra. Section 1.1022: Section 1.1022 is added to specify form and signature requirements for international design applications. Section 1.1022(a) provides that the international design application shall be presented on the official form. See Hague Agreement Rule 7(1). The term "official form" is defined in Hague Agreement Rule 1(vi) to mean "a form established by the International Bureau or an electronic interface made available by the International Bureau on the Web site of the Organization, or any form or electronic interface having the same contents and format." Section 1.1022(b) provides that the international design application shall be signed by the applicant. See Rule 7(1). Section 1.1023: The filing date of an international design application in the United States is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 384, added by section 101 of the PLTIA, which provides "[s]ubject to subsection (b), the filing date of an international design application in the United States shall be the effective registration date." 126 Stat. at 1529. The term "effective registration date" is defined in 35 U.S.C.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 115 

 381(a)(5) as "the date of international registration determined by the International Bureau under the treaty." 126 Stat. at 1528. Accordingly, § 1.1023(a) is added to set forth that the filing date of an international design application in the United States is the date of international registration determined by the International Bureau, subject to review under § 1.1023(b). Section 1.1023(b) is added to set forth a procedure to review the filing date of an international design application. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 384(b), "[t]he Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to review the filing date under this section. Such review may result in a determination that the application has a filing date in the United States other than the effective registration date." 126 Stat. at 1529. Accordingly, § 1.1023(b) provides that, where the applicant believes the international design application is entitled under the Hague Agreement to a filing date in the United States other than the date of international registration, the applicant may petition the Director to accord the international design application a filing date in the United States other than the date of international registration. Section 1.1023(b) requires that the petition be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f) and include a showing to the satisfaction of the Director that the international design application is entitled to such filing date. Section 1.1024: Section 1.1024 is added to provide that an international design application designating the United States must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 and preferably include a brief description of the reproduction pursuant to Rule 7(5)(a) describing the view or views of the reproductions. Pursuant to Article 5(2), a Contracting Party may require "a brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design that is the subject of that application" where such is a filing date requirement under its national law. See Article 5(2)(b)(ii). While the "brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design" referred to in Article 5(2)(b)(ii) is not a filing date requirement in the United States, applicants should consider whether including additional written description of the invention is needed to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. Rule 7(5)(a) allows the applicant to include in the international design application the description referred to in Article 5(2)(b)(ii) even if not required by a Contracting Party pursuant to Article 5(2). In the United States, the requirements for a filing date for an application for design patent are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 171, as amended under section 202 of the PLTIA, which states in subsection (c): "[t]he filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by [35 U.S.C.] 112 and any required drawings are filed." 126 Stat. 1535. Although a "brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design" is not a per se filing date requirement, it may be necessary to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), which requires, inter alia, that the "specification shall contain a written description of the invention." This written description requirement may be satisfied by the reproductions. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("It is the drawings of the design patent that provide the description of the invention."); In re Klein, 987 F.2d 1569, 1571, 26 USPQ2d 1133, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("[U]sual[ly] in design applications, there is no description other than the drawings"); Hupp v. Siroflex of America, Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1464, 43 USPQ2d 1887, 1893 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("A design patent contains no written description; the drawings are the claims to the patented subject matter."); Ex parte Tayama, 24 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int'f 1992) ("[D]esign applications must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, first paragraph. While this ordinarily requires little if any detailed description, some design applications may require a disclosure as detailed as that in a complex utility application. There is no `per se' rule with respect to the extent of the disclosure necessary in a design application. The adequacy of the disclosure must be determined on a case-by-case basis."). The Office
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 116 

 therefore encourages the inclusion in international design applications of a brief description of the reproduction, pursuant to Rule 7(5)(a), that describes the view or views of the reproductions, as may be required for design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See, e.g., § 1.153(b) ("No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required. . . .); § 1.154(b) ("The specification should include . . . 4) Description of the figure or figures of the drawing"); and MPEP 1503.01(II) ("Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, if they do not describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately, the examiner should object to the unclear and/or inaccurate descriptions and suggest language which is more clearly descriptive of the views."). Such figure descriptions are helpful for examination and may, in some cases, avoid rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. Furthermore, a description of the view or views of the reproductions will be required by the Office in a nonprovisional international design application if not furnished under Rule 7(5)(a). See discussion of § 1.1067, infra. Thus, § 1.1024 is added to provide that an international design application designating the United States must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, and should preferably include a brief description of the reproduction pursuant to Rule 7(5)(a) describing the view or views of the reproductions. The Office notes that Article 5(2)(b)(ii) and Rule 11(2) refer to a description of "characteristic features" of the industrial design that may be required by some Contracting Parties. A characteristic features statement is not required under U.S. national law. Applicants are cautioned that a characteristic features statement may serve to later limit the claim in the United States. See McGrady v. Aspenglas Corp., 487 F. Supp. 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); MPEP 1503.01. Section 1.1025: Section 1.1025 is added to set forth that the specific wording of the claim in an international design application designating the United States shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name of article) as shown, or as shown and described. Section 1.1025 also provides that more than one claim is neither required nor permitted for purposes of the United States. Under Rule 11(3), a declaration requiring a claim pursuant to Article 5(2) "shall specify the exact wording of the required claim." Section 1.1026: Section 1.1026 is added to provide that reproductions shall comply with the requirements of Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions. Rule 9 sets forth the requirements for reproductions in international design applications, including the form and number of reproductions, and references the requirements of the Administration Instructions. Part Four of the Administrative Instructions sets forth requirements concerning the presentation of the reproductions (Section 401), representation of the industrial design (Section 402), disclaimer (Section 403), requirements for photographs and other graphic representations (Section 404), numbering of reproductions (Section 405), requirements for specimens (Section 406), and relation with a principal industrial design or a principal application or registration (Section 407). Section 1.1027: Section 1.1027 provides that, where a request for deferment of publication has been filed in respect of a two-dimensional industrial design, the international design application may include specimens of the design in accordance with Rule 10 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions. Section 1.1027 further provides that specimens are not permitted in an international design application that designates the United States or any other Contracting Party that does not permit deferment of publication. Under the Hague Agreement, specimens are only permitted where a request for deferment of publication has been made. See Article 5(1)(iii); Rule 10(1). However, a request for deferment of publication is not permitted in an international design application that designates a Contracting Party that has made a declaration under Article 11(1)(b) that its applicable law does not provide for deferment of publication. See Article 11(3).
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 117 

 Section 1.1028: Section 1.1028 is added to make clear that an international design application may contain a request for deferment of publication, provided the application does not designate the United States or any other Contracting Party that does not permit deferment of publication. Where an international design application contains an improper request for deferment, the International Bureau will require correction pursuant to Article 11(3). Section 1.1031: Section 1.1031 is added to provide for payment of the international design application fees. Section 1.1031(a) provides that international design applications filed through the Office as an office of indirect filing are subject to payment of a transmittal fee in the amount of $120. Under the Hague Agreement, an office of indirect filing may require payment of a transmittal fee. See Article 4(2). Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 382(b), which provides that the international design application and international fees shall be forwarded by the Office to the International Bureau "upon payment of a transmittal fee." 126 Stat. at 1528. Accordingly, § 1.1031(a) provides for the payment of a transmittal fee. The transmittal fee is not being set pursuant to section 10(a) of the AIA. Rather, the Office is setting this fee pursuant to its authority under 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2) in this rulemaking, which provides that fees for all processing, services, or materials relating to patents not specified in 35 U.S.C. 41 are to be set at amounts to recover the estimated average cost to the Office of such processing, services, or materials. See 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2). The transmittal fee for an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing involves the following activities, which the Office considered in estimating the fiscal year 2012 costs: (1) Processing incoming paper ($2); (2) processing application fees ($7); (3) application indexing/ scanning ($65); (4) routing classification/security screening ($4); (5) second-level security screening and licensing and review processing ($1); (6) initial bibliographic data entry ($17); (7) copying and mailing ($9); (8) performing processing section functions ($11); and (9) performing Hague file maintenance ($2). Applying the ABI methodology discussed above, the Office has thus estimated the fiscal year 2012 unit cost to transmit an international design application and international fees to the International Bureau as the sum total of the aforementioned activities, resulting in a total unit cost of $118. Using the actual CPI-U increase for fiscal year 2013 and the estimated CPI-U for 2014 and 2015, the Office estimates the fiscal year 2015 unit cost to transmit the international design application and the international fees to the International Bureau is $124 ($118 multiplied by 1.051), which, when rounded to the nearest ten dollars, is a fee for transmittal of $120. Additional information concerning the Office's analysis of the estimated fiscal year 2012 costs for receiving and transmitting international design applications and international fees to the International Bureau is available upon request. Section 1.1031(b) provides that the Schedule of Fees, a list of individual designation fee amounts, and a fee calculator to assist applicants in calculating the total amount of fees for filing an international design application may be viewed on the Web site of the WIPO, currently available at http://www.wipo.int/hague. Under the Hague Agreement, the International Bureau is responsible for collecting the required fees set forth in the Schedule of Fees annexed to the Regulations (Rule 27(1)) and the individual designation fees referred to in Rule 12(1)(a)(iii). Where the required fees have not been paid, the International Bureau will invite the applicant to pay the required fees to avoid abandonment of the application. See Article 8; Rule 14. Section 1.1031(c) provides that the following fees required by the International Bureau may be paid either directly to the International Bureau or through the Office as an office of indirect filing in the amounts specified on the WIPO Web site described in § 1.1031(b): (1) The international application fees (Rule 12(1)); and (2) the fee for descriptions exceeding 100 words (Rule 11(2)). The fees referred to
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 118 

 in Hague Agreement Rule 12(1) include a basic fee, standard designation fees, individual designation fees, and a publication fee. Rule 12(3)(b) states that the Rule 12(1) reference to individual designation fees is construed as a reference to only the first part of the individual designation fee for any Contracting Party with a designation fee comprised of two parts. Section 1.1031(d) provides that the fees referred to in § 1.1031(c) may be paid directly to the International Bureau in Swiss currency. See Rule 27(2)(a). Administrative Instructions to the Hague Agreement set forth the various modes of payment accepted by the International Bureau. See Administrative Instruction 801. These include: (1) Payment by debit through an account established with the International Bureau; (2) payment into the Swiss postal check account or any of the specified bank accounts of the International Bureau; or (3) payment by credit card. Section 1.1031(d) also provides for payment of the fees referred to in § 1.1031(c) through the Office as an office of indirect filing, provided such fees are paid no later than the date of payment of the transmittal fee required under § 1.1031(a). Any payment through the Office must be in U.S. dollars. Section 1.1031(d) also provides that applicants paying fees through the Office may be subject to a requirement by the International Bureau to pay additional amounts where the International Bureau has deemed the amount received as being deficient. This may occur, for example, where the conversion from U.S. dollars to Swiss currency results in the International Bureau receiving less than the prescribed amounts. Under Rule 28(1), "[a]ll payments made under these Regulations to the International Bureau shall be in Swiss currency irrespective of the fact that, where the fees are paid through an Office, such Office may have collected those fees in another currency." Consequently, the fees collected by the Office for forwarding to the International Bureau must be converted to Swiss currency. If the converted amount at the time the Office transfers the fees to the International Bureau in Swiss currency is less than the amount required by the International Bureau, the International Bureau may invite the applicant to pay the deficiency. Any payment in response to the invitation must be made directly to the International Bureau within the period set in the invitation. Section 1.1031(e) provides that payment of the fees referred to in Article 17 and Rule 24 for renewing an international registration ("renewal fees") is not required to maintain a U.S. patent issuing on an international design application in force and that any renewal fees, if required, must be submitted directly to the International Bureau. Section 1.1031(e) further provides that any renewal fee submitted to the Office will not be transmitted to the International Bureau. The final rules do not provide for a fee for renewing an international registration with respect to the United States. Article 7 provides for a designation fee for each designated Contracting Party. Article 7(1) provides for a "prescribed" designation fee (also referred to as "standard" designation fee, see Rule 11). However, Article 7(2) allows a Contracting Party to make a declaration replacing the prescribed designation fee with an individual designation fee "in connection with any international application in which it is designated, and in connection with the renewal of any international registration resulting from such an international application." Pursuant to Article 7(2), the amount of the individual designation fee may be fixed by the Contracting Party "for the initial term of protection and for each term of renewal or for the maximum period of protection allowed by the Contracting Party concerned." Article 7(2) further provides that the individual designation fee may not be higher than the equivalent of the amount that the office of a Contracting Party would be entitled to receive for a grant of protection for an equivalent period to the same number of designs. Thus, while Article 7(2) permits a Contracting Party to fix an individual designation fee for renewing an international registration in respect of that Contracting Party, it does not require such fee. Rather, the individual designation fee fixed by the Contracting Party may be for the maximum period of protection allowed by the Contracting
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 119 

 Party. Furthermore, the PLTIA does not require payment of a fee for renewing an international registration with respect to the United States. In addition, the PLTIA does not require renewal of the international registration to obtain the maximum period of protection in the United States. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 173 as amended by the PLTIA, 126 Stat. at 1532 ("Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of 15 years from the date of grant."). Accordingly, the final rules do not provide a fee for renewing an international design application with respect to the United States. The Office notes that Article 17(3) provides that any extension of the initial five-year term of protection accorded by an international registration is subject to renewal. However, the Hague Agreement allows a Contracting Party to provide greater protection under its national law than provided under the Hague Agreement. See Article 2(1) ("The provisions of this Act shall not affect the application of any greater protection which may be accorded by the law of a Contracting Party. . . ."). Furthermore, the records of the diplomatic conference adopting the Hague Agreement make clear that renewal of the international registration for a designated Contracting Party that requires payment of a single designation fee for the entire 15-year (or more) period of protection is not required to obtain the full period of protection in that Contracting Party. See WIPO, Records of the Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of a New Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Design (Geneva Act) June 16 to July 6, 1999, 254, ] 15.08 (2002) (discussing Article 15 of the Basic Proposal presented to the diplomatic conference which, after minor amendment, became Article 17) ("It would be compatible with paragraphs (1) to (3) for a Contracting Party to stipulate a single 15-year (or more) period and to require payment of an initial individual designation fee for the whole period. In such case, protection would be maintained in its territory for that whole period, whether the international registration were renewed or not."). Section 1.1035: The Office has decided not to adopt § 1.1035 concerning priority in an international design application in this final rule. Section 1.1021(c)(5) in this final rule provides for the inclusion of, as an optional content item, a claim of priority of one or more earlier filed applications in accordance with Article 6 and Rule 7(5)(c) of the Hague Agreement. In addition, §§ 1.55 and 1.78 in this final rule provide for foreign priority and domestic benefit claims with respect to international design applications designating the United States. Accordingly, § 1.1035 is unnecessary. Section 1.1041: Section 1.1041 is added to provide for representation in an international design application. Section 1.1041(a) provides that the applicant may appoint a representative before the International Bureau in accordance with Rule 3. With respect to who may be appointed to represent the applicant before the International Bureau, the Hague Agreement does not provide for any requirement as to professional qualification, nationality, or domicile. The appointment may be made in the international design application or in a separate communication. See Rule 3(2). Requirements as to the appointment of a representative before the office of a Contracting Party are outside the scope of the Hague Agreement and are exclusively a matter for the Contracting Party. Accordingly, § 1.1041(b) is added to provide that applicants of international design applications may be represented before the Office as an office of indirect filing by a practitioner registered (§ 11.6) or granted limited recognition (§ 11.9(a) or (b)) to practice before the Office (§ 11.6). Section 1.1041(b) further provides that such practitioner may act pursuant to § 1.34 or pursuant to appointment by the applicant. The appointment must be in writing signed by the applicant, must give the practitioner power to act on behalf of the applicant, and must specify the name and registration number or limited recognition number of each practitioner. Section 1.1041(b) also provides that an appointment of a representative made in the international design application pursuant to Rule 3(2) that complies with the requirements
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 120 

 of this paragraph will be effective as an appointment before the Office as an office of indirect filing. For purposes of representation before the Office during prosecution of an international design application that became a national application (see § 1.9(a)(1)), the regulations governing national applications shall apply. See § 1.1061(a). Section 1.1042: Section 1.1042 is added to provide that the applicant may specify a correspondence address for correspondence sent by the Office as an office of indirect filing. Where no such address has been specified, the Office will use as the correspondence address the address of applicant's appointed representative (§ 1.1041) or, where no representative is appointed, the address as specified in Administrative Instruction 302. Section 1.1045: Section 1.1045 is added to set forth the procedures for transmittal of international design applications to the International Bureau. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 382, which states, in subsection (b): "[s]ubject to chapter 17, international design applications shall be forwarded by the Patent and Trademark Office to the International Bureau, upon payment of a transmittal fee." 126 Stat. at 1528. Rule 13(1) requires an office of indirect filing to notify the applicant and the International Bureau of the receipt date of an international design application and to notify the applicant that the international design application has been transmitted to the International Bureau. Accordingly, § 1.1045(a) is added to provide that, subject to § 1.1045(b) and payment of the transmittal fee set forth in § 1.1031(a), transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau shall be made by the Office as provided by Rule 13(1). Section 1.1045(a) further provides that at the same time as it transmits the international design application to the International Bureau, the Office shall notify the International Bureau of the date on which it received the application and that the Office shall also notify the applicant of the date on which it received the international design application and the date on which it transmitted the application to the International Bureau. Because transmittal of the international design application is subject to 35 U.S.C. chapter 17, § 1.1045(b) is added to provide that no copy of an international design application may be transmitted to the International Bureau, a foreign designated office, or other foreign authority by the Office or the applicant, unless the applicable requirements of part 5 of this chapter have been satisfied. Under the Hague Agreement, formalities review of the international design application is performed by the International Bureau, not the office of indirect filing. The functions of the office of indirect filing are de minimis, i.e., receiving and transmitting the international design application and international fees. There is no provision in the Hague Agreement for filing follow-on submissions with the office of indirect filing. Accordingly, § 1.1045(c) is added to provide that once transmittal of the international design application has been effected, except for matters properly before the USPTO as an office of indirect filing or as a designated office, all further correspondence concerning the application should be sent directly to the International Bureau, and that the Office will generally not forward communications to the International Bureau received after transmittal of the application to the International Bureau. Section 1.1045(c) further provides that any reply to an invitation sent to the applicant by the International Bureau must be filed directly with the International Bureau, and not with the Office, to avoid abandonment or other loss of rights under Article 8. Section 1.1051: Section 1.1051 is added to set forth conditions under which an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application may be excused as to the United States upon a showing of unintentional delay. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 387, which gives the Director authority to prescribe such conditions, including the payment of the fee specified in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7), to excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in an international design application as to the United States where the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 121 

 delay was unintentional. 126 Stat. at 1530; see discussion of § 1.17(m), supra. Under § 1.1051(a), a petition to excuse applicant's failure to act within the prescribed time limits must be accompanied by: (1) A copy of any invitation sent from the International Bureau setting a prescribed time limit for which applicant failed to timely act; (2) the reply required under § 1.1051(c), unless previously filed; (3) the fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); (4) a certified copy of the originally filed international design application, unless a copy of the international design application was previously communicated to the Office from the International Bureau or the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing; (5) a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this paragraph was unintentional; and (6) a terminal disclaimer (and fee as set forth in § 1.20(d)) required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The requirements for a copy of the invitation sent from the International Bureau setting a prescribed time limit for which applicant failed to timely act and for a certified copy of the originally filed international design application (unless a copy of the international design application was previously communicated to the Office from the International Bureau or the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing) are needed because the Office may not have a record of the international design application. For example, the Office may not have a record where the international design application was filed directly with the International Bureau and was not published. Section 1.1051(b) provides that, to be considered timely, any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to excuse the applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with an international design application upon petition filed under § 1.1051(a) must be filed within two months of the decision refusing to excuse or within such time as set in the decision. Section 1.1051(b) further provides that, unless a decision indicates otherwise, the two-month time period may be extended under the provisions of § 1.136. Section 1.1051(c) provides that the reply required may be: (1) The filing of a continuing application and, if the international design application has not been subject to international registration, a grantable petition under § 1.1023(b) to accord the international design application a filing date; or (2) a grantable petition under § 1.1052, where the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing. Under the Hague Agreement, the International Bureau reviews international design applications for compliance with the requirements of the treaty and Regulations. If these requirements have not been met, the International Bureau will invite the applicant to make the required corrections. See Hague Agreement Article 8(1). Depending on the correction required, failure to timely comply with the invitation will result in the application being considered abandoned or deemed not to contain the designation of the Contracting Party for which the deficiency relates. See Hague Agreement Article 8(2). The Hague Agreement does not provide for continued processing of an international design application that has been abandoned under Article 8 (or for processing the application for a particular Contracting Party after the designation of that Contracting Party has been deemed not to be contained in the application), based on the Office excusing the applicant's failure to timely comply with the invitation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 387. For example, the Hague Agreement does not provide for forwarding by the International Bureau to the applicant a notification of refusal in an abandoned international application. Accordingly, the Office is providing relief under 35 U.S.C. 387 by permitting the applicant to file a continuing application claiming benefit to an international design application under the conditions of 35 U.S.C.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 122 

 386(c) and 120. Upon grant of the petition under this section, applicant's delay will be excused for the purpose of establishing copendency or reinstatement of the U.S. designation in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 120, 386(c), and 388. The ability to file a continuing application is similarly provided in the rule governing the procedure for revival of an abandoned national application. See 37 CFR 1.137(c). Alternatively, § 1.1051(c) provides that the reply may be a grantable petition under § 1.1052 to convert the international design application to an application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Section 1.1051(d) provides that any petition under § 1.1051 must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period beginning on the due date for the reply for which applicant failed to timely act and ending on the date of filing of the reply required under paragraph (c) of the section and must also apply to any patent granted on a continuing design application that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the application for which relief under this section is sought. The requirement under § 1.1051(d) for a terminal disclaimer prevents an inappropriate length of patent term caused by applicant's delay and is consistent with the requirement under § 1.137(d) for a terminal disclaimer in a petition to revive an unintentionally abandoned design application. Section 1.1052: Section 1.1052 is added to set forth a procedure for converting an international design application designating the United States to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 384(a), the second sentence of which provides: "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of this part, any international design application designating the United States that otherwise meets the requirements of chapter 16 may be treated as a design application under chapter 16." 126 Stat. at 1529. The requirements for a filing date for a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 are set forth in § 1.53(b). Accordingly, § 1.1052(a) provides that an international design application designating the United States filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing and meeting the requirements under § 1.53(b) for a filing date for an application for a design patent may, on petition under this section, be converted to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) and accorded a filing date as provided therein. Section 1.1052(a) further provides that the petition must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(t) and be filed prior to publication of the international registration under Article 10(3). The requirement that a grantable petition be filed prior to publication under Article 10(3) is necessary in view of the timing requirements under the Hague Agreement to issue a notification of refusal and to avoid expending Office resources processing and examining the application under two different statutory schemes. Section 1.1052(a) also provides that the conversion of an international design application to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) will not entitle applicant to a refund of the transmittal fee or any fee forwarded to the International Bureau, or the application of any such fee toward the filing fee, or any other fee, for the application for a design patent under § 1.53(b). In addition, § 1.1052(a) provides that the application for a design patent resulting from conversion of an international design application must also include the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(b)), the search fee (§ 1.16(l)), the examination fee (§ 1.16(p)), the inventor's oath or declaration (§§ 1.63 or 1.64), and a surcharge if required by § 1.16(f). These provisions are similar to those applicable to converting an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) to an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). See § 1.53(c)(3). Section 1.1052(b) provides that an international design application will be converted to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) if a decision on petition under this section is granted prior to transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau pursuant to § 1.1045. Otherwise, a decision
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 123 

 granting a petition under this section will be effective to convert the international design application to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) only for purposes of the designation of the United States. Thus, pursuant to § 1.1052(b), if the Office grants the petition prior to transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau, the Office will treat the international design application submission as an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b). Once transmittal of the application under § 1.1045 has occurred, the grant of the petition will only be effective as to the United States, and the International Bureau will continue to process the international design application under the provisions of the Hague Agreement. In such case, because the international design application will have been converted to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) with respect to the designation of the United States, the Office will, upon grant of the petition, treat the designation of the United States in the international design application as not being made. To avoid confusion and unnecessary processing, applicants should renounce the designation of the United States pursuant to Article 16 upon grant of the petition for conversion. Section 1.1052 (c) provides that a petition under § 1.1052 will not be granted in an abandoned international design application absent a grantable petition under § 1.1051. Section 1.1052(d) provides that an international design application converted under this section is subject to the regulations applicable to a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Sections 1.1061-1.1071 relate to national processing of an international design application designating the United States. Section 1.1061: Section 1.1061(a) is added to provide that the rules relating to applications for patents for other inventions or discoveries are also applicable to international design applications designating the United States, except as otherwise provided in chapter I of title 37 of the CFR or required by the Articles or Regulations of the Hague Agreement. Section 1.1061(a) is similar to current § 1.151 with respect to design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 ("The rules relating to applications for patents for other inventions or discoveries are also applicable to applications for patents for designs except as otherwise provided."). Section 101(a) of the PLTIA adds 35 U.S.C. 389(b) to provide that all questions of procedures regarding international design applications designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16, except where otherwise required by the Hague Agreement and the Regulations (126 Stat. at 1530). Section 1.1061(b) is added to identify, consistent with the Hague Agreement and the Regulations, certain regulations that do not apply to international design applications. Section 1.1062: Section 1.1062(a) is added to provide that the Office shall make an examination pursuant to title 35, United States Code, of an international design application designating the United States. Examination of international design applications designating the United States is mandated by 35 U.S.C. 389(a), which was added by section 101(a) of the PLTIA (126 Stat. at 1530). In accordance with Article 12(1) and 35 U.S.C. 389(b), the Office will not refuse an international design application under examination on grounds that requirements relating to the form or contents of the international design application provided for in the Hague Agreement or the Regulations or additional to, or different from, those requirements have not been satisfied. Accordingly, the Office does not consider it necessary to import the language of Article 12(1) into § 1.1061(a) as originally proposed. The Office does not consider Article 12(1) to prohibit refusals based on requirements relating to form or contents of the application provided for in the Hague Agreement or Regulations where the International Bureau is not responsible for verifying compliance with such requirements. Such a situation could arise, for example, where the applicant submits amended drawings directly to the Office in an international design application before the Office for examination, as
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 124 

 contemplated under Article 14(2)(c). Otherwise, the amended drawings would not be subject to any formal requirements. The Office's interpretation is consistent with the intent of Article 12(1). See, e.g., WIPO, Guide to the International Registration of Industrial Designs under the Hague Agreement, B.II.36, ] 9.03 (Jan. 2014) ("Protection may not be refused on the grounds that the international registration does not satisfy formal requirements, since such requirements are to be considered by each Contracting Party as having already been satisfied following the examination carried out by the International Bureau. For example, a designated Office may not refuse protection on the ground that the required fees have not been paid or that the quality of the reproductions is not sufficient, since such verification is the exclusive responsibility of the International Bureau." (emphases added)); WIPO, Notes on the Basic Proposal for the New Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, H/DC/5, ] 11.01 (Dec. 15, 1998) ("Paragraph (1) [(referring to Article 11(1) of the Basic Proposal, which became Article 12(1))] affords the Offices of the designated Contracting Parties the right to refuse the effects of international registrations in which they are designated. It is clear, to begin with, that protection may not be refused on the grounds that the filing does not satisfy the requirements as to form or content of the international application laid down in the new Act or in the Regulations to the extent that such requirements are to be considered by each Contracting Party as having already been satisfied under the international procedure. Additionally, once the International Bureau has ascertained that those conditions have been satisfied and has proceeded with the international registration, paragraph (1) stipulates that no Office may refuse the effects of an international registration on the grounds that requirements relating to the form or contents of the international application that are contained in the legislation of the Contracting Party concerned and which are additional to or different from the requirements set out in this Act or in the Regulations have not been met." (third emphasis added)). See also the discussion of § 1.067(a), infra (regarding refusals permitted under the Hague Agreement with respect to optional content items). Section 1.1062(b) concerns the timing of certain actions in international design applications. Pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 12, where the conditions for the grant of protection under the law of the Contracting Party are not met, a notification of refusal of the effects of international registration must be communicated to the International Bureau within the prescribed period. Rule 18(1) sets forth the period for communicating the notification of refusal. While Rule 18(1)(a) sets forth the prescribed period as six months from the date of publication, this period may be extended by a Contracting Party pursuant to a declaration made under Rule 18(1)(b) (extending the six- month period to twelve months). Furthermore, the declaration under Rule 18(1)(b) may also include, inter alia, a statement under Rule 18(1)(c)(ii) (providing for the later communication of a decision regarding the grant of protection where a decision regarding the grant of protection was unintentionally delayed by the office of the Contracting Party). Section 1.1062(b) is added to provide that, for each international design application to be examined, the Office shall, subject to Rule 18(1)(c)(ii), send to the International Bureau within 12 months from the publication of the international registration under Rule 26(3) a notification of refusal (§ 1.1063) where it appears that the applicant is not entitled to a patent under U.S. law with respect to any industrial design that is the subject of the international registration. The Office intends to send all notifications of refusal prior to the expiration of the 12-month period set forth in § 1.1062(b). Any failure by the Office to do so would be unintentional pursuant to Rule 18(1)(c)(ii). The Office does not regard the failure to send the notification of refusal within the period referenced in § 1.1062(b) to confer
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 125 

 patent rights or other effect under Article 14(2). The Hague Agreement is not self-executing, and the PLTIA provides for patent rights only upon issuance of a patent. See 35 U.S.C. 389(d) added by the PLTIA, 126 Stat. at 1531; see also S. Exec. Rep. No. 110-7, at 5 ("The proposed Act makes no substantive changes in U.S. design patent law with the exception of the following: The provision of limited rights to patent applicants between the date that their international design application is published by the IB and the date on which they are granted a U.S. patent based on that application; the extension of a patent term for designs from fourteen to fifteen years from grant; and allowing the USPTO to use a published international design registration as a basis for rejecting a subsequently filed national patent application that is directed at the same or a similar subject matter."). Furthermore, the PLTIA requires an international design application that designates the United States to be examined by the Office pursuant to title 35, United States Code. See 35 U.S.C. 389(a). Patent rights may only arise at the end of the examination process. The absence of a notification of refusal does not confer enforceable rights. See 35 U.S.C. 153 ("Patents shall be issued in the name of the United States of America, under the seal of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be signed by the Director or have his signature placed thereon and shall be recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office."). Section 1.1063: Section 1.1063(a) is added to provide, in accordance with Rule 18(2)(b), that a notification of refusal shall contain or indicate: (1) The number of the international registration (Rule 18(2)(b)(ii)); (2) the grounds on which the refusal is based (Rule 18(2)(b)(iii)); (3) a copy of a reproduction of the earlier industrial design and information concerning the earlier industrial design, where the grounds of refusal refer to similarity with an industrial design that is the subject of an earlier application or registration (Rule 18(2)(b)(iv)); (4) where the refusal does not relate to all the industrial designs that are the subject of the international registration, those to which it relates or does not relate (Rule 18(2)(b)(v)); and (5) a time period for reply under §§ 1.134 and 1.136 where a reply to the notification of refusal is required (Rule 18(2)(b)(vi)). Pursuant to Article 12, the Office communicates the notification of refusal directly to the International Bureau, which then transmits without delay a copy of the notification of refusal to the holder. The grounds of refusal may be in the form of a rejection based on a condition for patentability under title 35, United States Code (e.g., 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112), a requirement for restriction (where more than one independent and distinct design is presented in the application), and/or an objection (where not prohibited by Article 12(1) of the Hague Agreement). The grounds of refusal may also be based on applicant's action, including cancellation of industrial designs in the international design application by amendment or by an express abandonment of the application pursuant to § 1.138 prior to examination. The Office will generally forward references used in the grounds of refusal (e.g., a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) with the notification of refusal unless the reference was cited by the applicant in an information disclosure statement. The notification of refusal communicated by the Office will set a time period for reply under §§ 1.134 and 1.136 to avoid abandonment where a reply to the notification of refusal is required. Not all notifications of refusal will require a reply. For example, where the international registration contains multiple industrial designs and all but one design is cancelled by preliminary amendment prior to examination, and the remaining design is determined by the examiner to be allowable, then a notice of allowance will be sent concurrently with a notification of refusal, refusing the effects of the international registration in the United States with respect to the industrial design or designs that have been cancelled. Such a notification of refusal, otherwise known as a "partial notification of refusal," will be communicated to the International Bureau but will
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 126 

 not set a time period for reply to the notification of refusal, as no reply to the refusal is required. Section 1.1063(b) is added to provide that any reply to the notification of refusal must be filed directly with the Office and not through the International Bureau. Section 1.1063(b) further provides that the requirements of § 1.111 shall apply to a reply to a notification of refusal. As described above, the notification of refusal may be a non-final Office action, including a non-final Office action on the merits, after a first examination under § 1.104. Under the Hague Agreement, any reply to the notification of refusal must be filed directly with the Office. The applicant may not file a reply to a notification of refusal through the International Bureau. Any further correspondence from the Office will normally be sent directly to the applicant. The procedures applicable to design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 are generally applicable to international design applications after communication of the notification of refusal. See Article 12(3)(b) and 35 U.S.C. 389(b); see also WIPO, Guide to the International Registration of Industrial Designs under the Hague Agreement, B.II.40, ] 9.23 (Jan. 2014) ("Where the holder of an international registration receives, through the International Bureau, a notification of refusal, he has the same rights and remedies (such as review of, or appeal against, the refusal) as if the industrial design had been filed directly with the Office that issued the notification of refusal. The international registration is, therefore, with respect to the Contracting Party concerned, subject to the same procedures as would apply to an application for registration filed with the Office of that Contracting Party."). Thus, for example, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 133 and §§ 1.134 through 1.136 govern the time to reply to an Office action, including a notification of refusal that requires a reply to avoid abandonment, and the consequence for failure to timely reply (i.e., abandonment). Because the procedures following the notification of refusal are governed by national practice, the failure of an applicant to renew an international registration pursuant to Article 17(2) does not affect the pendency status of an international design application before the Office. Otherwise, applicants in international design applications would not have the same rights and remedies as applicants in national design applications, as required under Article 12(3)(b) and 35 U.S.C. 389. Similarly, the failure to renew a registration under Article 17(2) does not impact an applicant's ability to file a continuing application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), as the critical inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 120 is the presence of copendency. Section 1.1064: Section 1.1064(a) is added to provide that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a nonprovisional international design application. Subject to the requirements of Article 13, a Contracting Party whose law at the time it becomes party to the Hague Agreement requires, inter alia, that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a single application, can refuse the effects of the international registration on grounds of noncompliance with such requirement. U.S. law requires that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a single application. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391 (CCPA 1959); In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967); MPEP 1504.05. Accordingly, § 1.1064(a) is added to provide that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a nonprovisional international design application. Section 1.1064(b) provides that, if the requirements under § 1.1064(a) are not satisfied, the examiner shall in the notification of refusal or other Office action require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect one independent and distinct design for which prosecution on the merits shall be restricted. Section 1.1064(b) further provides that such requirement will normally be made before any action on the merits but may be made at any time before the final action. Review of any such requirement is provided under §§ 1.143 and 1.144. Section 1.1065: Hague Agreement Rule 22 provides for correction of errors in the International Registration by the International Bureau,
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 127 

 acting ex officio or at the request of the holder. Under Rule 22(2), a designated Contracting Party has the right to refuse the effects of correction. Accordingly, § 1.1065(a) is added to provide that the effects of any correction in the International Register by the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 22 in a pending nonprovisional international design application shall be decided by the Office in accordance with the merits of each situation, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed. Section 1.1065(a) further provides that a patent may only be corrected in accordance with the provisions of title 35, United States Code, for correcting patents. Such provisions are contained, for example, in 35 U.S.C. chapter 25. Title I of the PLTIA does not provide another mechanism for correcting patents issued on international design applications. Section 1.1065(a) also provides that any correction under Rule 22 recorded by the International Bureau with respect to an abandoned nonprovisional international design application will generally not be acted upon by the Office and shall not be given effect unless otherwise indicated by the Office. Rule 22 does not impose any requirement on a Contracting Party to give effect to a correction made under Rule 22 in an international design application that is abandoned before that Contracting Party. Section 1.1065(b) is added to provide that a recording of a partial change in ownership in the International Register pursuant to Rule 21(7) concerning a transfer of less than all designs shall not have effect in the United States. Under the Hague Agreement, a partial change in ownership resulting from an assignment or other transfer of the international registration in respect of only some of the industrial designs or only some of the designated Contracting Parties may be recorded in the International Register pursuant to Rule 21(7). Upon recording of the partial change in ownership, the International Bureau will create a new international registration number for the part that has been assigned or otherwise transferred, and cancel that part under the originally international registration number. Consequently, it is possible that an original international registration may be divided by the International Bureau into a number of international registrations each directed to only some of the designs present in the original registration. Such would present administrative difficulties for the Office. Under Rule 21bis, a Contracting Party may declare that a change in ownership recorded in the International Register has no effect in that Contracting Party. Accordingly, § 1.1065(b) is added, consistent with Rule 21bis, to provide that a recording of a partial change in ownership in the International Register pursuant to Rule 21(7) concerning a transfer of less than all designs shall not have effect in the United States. Section 1.1065(b) does not limit the right of the owner to assign or otherwise transfer a portion of his or her interest in the application, or to record such transfer in the Office, but rather simply provides that the recording of such a transfer in the International Register will not have effect in the United States. Section 1.1066: Section 1.1066 is added to specify the correspondence address for a nonprovisional international design application. Unlike other types of applications before the Office, an applicant does not need to file any submissions with the Office to initiate examination under § 1.1062 of an international design application designating the United States. Rather, published international design registrations that designate the United States will be systematically received from the International Bureau and examined in due course. Accordingly, § 1.1066(a) sets forth how the Office will establish the correspondence address for a nonprovisional international design application in the absence of a communication from the applicant changing the correspondence address. Specifically, § 1.1066(a) provides that, unless the correspondence address is changed in accordance with § 1.33(a), the Office will use as the correspondence address in a nonprovisional international design application the address according to the following order: (i) The correspondence address under § 1.1042; (ii) the address of the applicant's representative identified in the publication of the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 128 

 international registration; and (iii) the address of the applicant identified in the publication of the international registration. Section 1.1066(b) is added to provide that a reference in the rules to the correspondence address set forth in § 1.33(a) shall be construed to include a reference to § 1.1066 for a nonprovisional international design application. Section 1.1067: Section 1.1067(a) is added to provide for a title in a nonprovisional international design application. The Hague Agreement does not require that an international design application contain a title. The Office believes a title that identifies the article in which a design is embodied is helpful to the public in understanding the nature of the article embodying the design after the patent has issued and also aids in identification during public search. In addition, a U.S. patent must contain a title of the invention. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) ("Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention. . . ."). Accordingly, pursuant to § 1.1067(a), the applicant may provide a title of the design that designates the particular article in a nonprovisional international design application. Section 1.1067(a) further provides that, where a nonprovisional international design application does not contain a title of the design, the Office may establish a title. In determining the title, the Office may look to the particular article specified in the claim. Section 1.1067(a) also provides for a brief description of the drawings in a nonprovisional international design application, as for design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Section 1.1061(a), discussed supra, makes applicable the rules relating to applications for patents to international design applications that designate the United States except as otherwise provided in chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations or required by the Hague Agreement Articles or Regulations. Section 1.1061(b) in this final rule excludes from applicability to international design applications the requirements set forth in § 1.74 for a description of the drawings. Instead, a requirement for a brief description of the drawings is provided for in § 1.1067(a) in this final rule. The description requirement in § 1.1067(a) is consistent with the description requirement applicable to design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See § 1.153 ("No description, other than a reference to the drawings, is ordinarily required."). The PLTIA provides for parity in the treatment of international design applications designating the United States with design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16, except where otherwise provided by the PLTIA, Hague Agreement, or Regulations. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 389(b) ("All questions of substance and, unless otherwise required by the treaty and Regulations, procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under chapter 16."). Rule 7(5)(a) allows an applicant to include in the international design application a brief description of the reproduction even where those items are not required under Article 5(2). The purpose of Rule 7(5)(a) is to allow applicants to include these items in the international design application to avoid a refusal by a designated Contracting Party whose national law requires such items, though not as a filing date requirement. See, e.g., WIPO, Notes on the Basic Proposal for the New Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, H/DC/ 5, ] 5.09 (Dec. 15, 1998) ("Paragraph (2) [(Article 5(3))] gives applicants the possibility of including in the international application, or accompanying it by, those additional elements which are specified in Rule 7(4) [(Rule 7(5)(a))]. Certain of those elements may be furnished by applicants in order to avoid refusal by a designated Contracting Party. If the international application does not contain an optional element as referred to in Article 5(2) and designates a Contracting Party that imposes the requirement or requirements concerned, regularization will not be carried out with the International Bureau, but with the designated Office that has issued the refusal."). See also WIPO, Records of the Diplomatic Conference
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 129 

 for the Adoption of a New Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs (Geneva Act) June 16 to July 6, 1999, 480, ]] 793-94 (2002) (discussing Rule 7 at the 1999 Diplomatic Conference). Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement may require items referred to in Rule 7(5)(a) pursuant to their national law. Applicants are informed of each Contracting Party's national law requirements in the application for international registration form (DM/1 form) and corresponding instructions to the application form. See, e.g., instruction form DM/1.INF, ] 38, currently available at http://www.wipo.int/hague/en/forms/ (advising applicants that if they designate certain Contracting Parties, the applicant must provide the optional item required by such Contracting Party's national law, and that such item will not be reviewed by the International Bureau). Section 1.1067(b) is added to provide that, if the applicant is notified in a notice of allowability that an oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or a substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, executed by or with respect to each named inventor has not been filed, the applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136. As explained above, Hague Agreement Rule 8 accommodates current U.S. law regarding the inventor's oath or declaration. Because the presence of the required inventor's oath or declaration is verified by the International Bureau as part of its formalities review, the need to notify the applicant in a notice of allowability that an inventor's oath or declaration is required should be rare, e.g., where an inventor is added pursuant to § 1.48(a) and an executed an oath or declaration from the inventor has not been received. See § 1.48(b). Since the notice of allowability is used whenever an application has been placed in a condition for allowance (see MPEP 1302.03), the notice of allowability does not constitute a refusal of the effects of the international registration, and thus is not a notification of refusal, notwithstanding any requirement in the notice of allowability to furnish an item, such as the inventor's oath or declaration pursuant to § 1.1067. Section 1.1068: Section 1.1068 is added to provide that, upon issuance of a patent on an international design application designating the United States, the Office may send to the International Bureau a statement to the effect that protection is granted in the United States to the industrial design or designs that are the subject of the international registration and covered by the patent. The sending of such a statement is provided for under Hague Agreement Rule 18bis and serves the purpose of providing notice to the public and third parties through publication of the statement by the International Bureau in the International Designs Bulletin that protection for an industrial design has been granted in the United States. The statement also serves as a withdrawal, in part or in whole, of any prior refusal with respect to the design covered by the patent. See Rule 18bis(2). Section 1.1069: The Office has decided not to add § 1.1069 in this final rule. Section 1.1069 concerning a notification of division is not necessary. The requirements relating to a notification of division are clearly set forth in Rule 18(3) and Administrative Instruction 502. Furthermore, having a rule that sets forth requirements contained in an administrative instruction would necessitate the need to amend the rule each time the administrative instruction is changed. Section 1.1070: Section 1.1070 is added to provide for the sending of a notification of invalidation to the International Bureau. Article 15 provides that the office of the Contracting Party in whose territory the effects of the international registration have been invalidated shall, where it is aware of the invalidation, notify the International Bureau of the invalidation ("notification of invalidation"). Rule 20 provides that, where the effects of an international registration are invalidated in a designated Contracting Party and the invalidation is no longer subject to any review or appeal, the office of the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 130 

 Contracting Party whose competent authority has pronounced the invalidation shall, where it is aware of the invalidation, notify the International Bureau accordingly. Rule 20 further specifies the required contents of the notification of invalidation. In accordance with Article 15 and Rule 20, § 1.1070(a) provides that, where a design patent that was granted from an international design application is invalidated in the United States and the invalidation is no longer subject to any review or appeal, the patentee shall inform the Office. Section 1.1070(b) provides that after receiving a notification of invalidation under § 1.1070(a) or through other means, the Office will notify the International Bureau in accordance with Rule 20. Section 1.1071: Section 1.1071 is added to provide that a grant of protection for an industrial design that is the subject of an international registration shall only arise in the United States through the issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389(d) or 171 and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 153. Section 3.1: Section 3.1 is amended to include an international design application that designates the United States of America within the definition of "application" for purposes of Part 3 of Title 37 of the CFR. The change to the definition of "application" in § 3.1 makes clear that assignments (or other documents affecting title) of international design applications that designate the United States may be submitted to the Office for recording. The change to § 3.1 is in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 385, added under the PLTIA, which provides that an international design application designating the United States has the effect, for all purposes, of an application for patent filed in the Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. 126 Stat. at 1529. Section 3.21: Section 3.21 is amended to provide that an assignment relating to an international design application that designates the United States must identify the international design application by the international registration number or by the U.S. application number assigned to the international design application. Section 5.1: Section 5.1(b) is amended to change the definition of "application" as used in part 5 of title 37 of the CFR to include international design applications and for consistency with the definitions in § 1.9. Section 5.1(b) is also amended to include a definition of "foreign application" to permit simplification of other rules contained in part 5. Section 5.3: Section 5.3(d) is amended to clarify that an international design application that is subject to a secrecy order will not be mailed, delivered, or otherwise transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant. Section 5.11: The title of § 5.11 is amended to encompass international design applications and to indicate that the license authorizes filing and exporting. Section 5.11(a) is amended to clarify that, just as for filing an international application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office under the PCT, a foreign filing license is not required to file an international design application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as an office of indirect filing under the Hague Agreement. The Office notes that, pursuant to § 5.12, filing of an international design application constitutes "a petition for license under 35 U.S.C. 184 for the subject matter of the application." Sections 5.11(b), (c), (e)(3)(i), and (f) are amended to change "foreign patent application" to "foreign application," as the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 184 are not limited to "patent" applications but include other types of applications, e.g., registrations of industrial designs. Section 5.11(b) is also amended for consistency with § 5.11(c) with respect to the citation to regulations contained in other titles under the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 5.11(f) is also amended to refer to the Office as the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Section 5.12: Section 5.12 is amended for consistency with the definition of "application" in § 5.1(b) as amended in this final rule and to indicate that the grant of a foreign filing license may be on an official notice other than the filing receipt, e.g., in the case
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 131 

 of international applications filed under the PCT, on the "Notification of the International Application Number and of the International Filing Date" (Form PCT/RO/105). Section 5.13: Section 5.13 is amended to include as a corresponding application for purposes of this section an international design application that has been filed in the United States. Thus, if no corresponding national, international design, or international application has been filed in the United States, the petition for license under § 5.12(b) must also be accompanied by a legible copy of the material upon which a license is desired. Section 5.14: Section 5.14(c) is amended for clarity to provide that a copy of the application to be filed or exported abroad must be furnished with the petition under § 5.14 under the conditions set forth in § 5.14(c). The copy of the application required under § 5.14(c) may be a copy of the international design application to be filed or exported abroad. Section 5.15: Section 5.15(a) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(3), (b), (d) and (e) are amended for consistency with the changes to §§ 5.1(b) and 5.11 as amended in this final rule. Section 11.10: Section 11.10(b)(3)(iii) is amended to include international design application in the definition of patent application for purposes of § 11.10. Section 41.200(b): Section 41.200(b) is added to provide that any reference to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 135 in this subpart refers to the statute in effect on March 15, 2013, unless otherwise expressly indicated, and to provide that any reference to 35 U.S.C. 141 or 146 in this subpart refers to the statute applicable to the involved application or patent. Section 41.200(b) is added for clarity consistent with the changes made under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Section 41.201: The definition of "constructive reduction to practice" is amended to provide that for a chain of patent applications to be continuous, each subsequent application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119-121, 365, or 386. The amended definition accounts for priority under 35 U.S.C. 386 added by title 1 of the PTLIA as well as priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(b), and 365(c). The definition of "threshold issue" is amended by changing the reference to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in paragraph (2)(ii) to 35 U.S.C. 112, as the written description requirement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, may be applicable in certain cases. Comments and Responses to Comments: The Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking on November 29, 2013, proposing to change the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA. See Changes To Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs, 78 FR 71870 (Nov. 29, 2013). The Office received seven written submissions containing comments from intellectual property organizations, academia, a law firm, an individual patent practitioner, and the general public in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking. The summarized comments and the Office's responses to those comments follow: Closed System Comment 1: Several comments requested that the Office clarify whether an international design application that designates the United States can be assigned to a person who is not entitled to file an international design application under the Hague Agreement. One of the comments further suggested that such clarification be made by amending certain rules affected by a limitation on assignment, in particular § 1.46(c) (pertaining to a change in the applicant), §§ 3.21 and 3.24 (pertaining to assignments), and all rules pertaining to actions by the patent owner (e.g., §§ 1.172 and 1.510). Another comment suggested that if assignment is restricted, any patent granted on an international design application should include a notice to the public of the restriction. A further comment questioned whether any restriction in transfer of ownership, if applicable to international design applications, would also apply to continuing applications.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 132 

 Response: The PLTIA does not restrict assignment of international design applications designating the United States, or patents issuing thereon, to persons entitled to file an application under the Hague Agreement. 35 U.S.C. 261 provides that "patents shall have the attributes of personal property," that "[a]pplications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing" and that "[t]he applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States." See also GAIA Techs., Inc. v. Reconversion Techs., Inc., 93 F.3d 774, 777-80 (Fed. Cir. 1996), as amended on reh'g, 104 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Patents . . ., like other personal property, may be conveyed from the inventor . . . to others. . . ."). Title I of the PLTIA did not change 35 U.S.C. 261 or otherwise restrict to whom an international design application or patent issuing thereon may be assigned. The fact that the Hague Agreement is a closed system, in that only persons who meet certain criteria may file an international design application, does not restrict the ability to transfer ownership in the application (or resulting patent) to a person not entitled to file under the system. Similar to Hague applicants, applicants in international applications filed under the PCT must be nationals or residents of PCT Contracting States in order to file international applications. See PCT Article 9. Also, U.S. national law does not restrict the ability of PCT applicants to assign PCT applications designating the United States to persons not entitled to file applications under the PCT. See, e.g., § 3.1 (defining "application" for purposes of the rules governing assignments to broadly include "international [PCT] applications that designate the United States"); § 3.21 (specifying only an identification requirement for assignments relating to international patent applications that designate the United States). In contrast, applicants filing for trademark protection under the Madrid Protocol are barred from assigning an extension of protection to a person who is not entitled to file the application under the Madrid Protocol (see, e.g., § 7.22 (providing that Section 10 of the Lanham Act and 37 CFR part 3 are not applicable to assignments or restrictions of international registrations)). This is because the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002, unlike the PLTIA and legislation implementing the PCT, expressly restricts assignment. See 15 U.S.C. 1141l ("An extension of protection may be assigned, together with the goodwill associated with the mark, only to a person who is a national of, is domiciled in, or has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment either in a country that is a Contracting Party or in a country that is a member of an intergovernmental organization that is a Contracting Party."). Furthermore, Article 16 of the Hague Agreement provides only that the International Bureau shall record changes in ownership of the international registration in the International Register, provided that the new owner is entitled to file an international application under Article 3. See Article 16(1)(i). Recording changes in ownership by the International Bureau in the International Register is a separate issue from whether an international design application can be assigned or otherwise transferred under national law. The Hague Agreement does not govern the validity of ownership changes. See WIPO, Guide to the International Registration of Industrial Designs under the Hague Agreement, B.II.46, ] 13.04 (Jan. 2014) ("Furthermore, the issue of the recording of a change in ownership in the International Register must be distinguished from that of the validity of such change in ownership. The Hague Agreement does not set out, for example, the conditions to be met regarding the validity of a deed of assignment relating to an international registration. These conditions are, and remain, governed exclusively by the relevant domestic legislation, and may therefore vary from one Contracting Party to another (e.g., the need for execution of a document in writing certifying the assignment, proof of the age of the parties in order to assess their legal
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 133 

 entitlement, etc.)."). See also id. at ] 13.05 ("The Hague Agreement provides only for the requirements to be complied with in order to validly record a change in ownership in the International Register."). One comment suggested amending § 1.46(c) to clarify whether an international design application designating the United States can be amended to name an applicant who is not entitled to file under the Hague Agreement. The Office does not deem clarification necessary. Who qualifies to be an applicant for a designated Contracting Party is a matter of national law. The PLTIA does not expressly state who is qualified to be an applicant for an international design application designating the United States, but otherwise indicates that a qualified applicant does not differ from a person qualified to be an applicant for a national design application under 35 U.S.C. 171-73. See section 101(a) of the PLTIA (adding 35 U.S.C. 389(b) ("All questions of substance and, unless otherwise required by the treaty and Regulations, procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under chapter 16."); 35 U.S.C. 382(c) ("Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the provisions of chapter 16 shall apply."); and 35 U.S.C. 383 ("In addition to any requirements pursuant to chapter 16, the international design application shall contain . . . .")). 126 Stat. at 1528-30. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 118, as amended under the AIA, an assignee may be an applicant in a patent application. As explained above, the assignee of an international design application designating the United States may be a person not entitled to file an application under the Hague Agreement. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 118, such person may be named as an applicant in the international design application pursuant to the provisions of § 1.46(c). This is also consistent with applicant changes made pursuant to § 1.46(c) in the U.S. national phase of PCT international applications. Because the Office does not consider the PLTIA to prohibit assigning an international design application designating the United States to a person not entitled to file an application under the Hague system, the rules do not provide for any restriction on assignment. Comment 2: One comment suggested that a U.S. patent issuing from an international design application be identified as an "international design patent" to clarify that rights are subject to the Hague Agreement, with its closed system features, for example, only membership participation, assignment of International Registration rights, and renewal features. Response: A U.S. patent issued on an international design application will include information on the front page that will indicate that the patent issued on an international design application. But identifying a U.S. patent issued on an international design application as an "international design patent" may lead to confusion among the public and others as to the scope of protection arising under the patent. A patent issued on an international design application designating the United States has the force and effect of a patent issued on an application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See 35 U.S.C. 389(d). Continuing Applications, Continued Prosecution Applications, and Converted Applications Comment 3: One comment requested that the Office provide for continued prosecution applications (CPAs) in international design applications. The comment asserts that CPAs provide for quick resolution of remaining issues in prosecution, have lower filing fees than continuation applications, provide provisional rights, and are required under the PLTIA. Alternatively, the comment requests that the Office either expedite or prioritize examination of a continuation application claiming priority to an international design application in limited circumstances, or provide a conditional petition procedure whereby a petition could be filed after allowance that would permit consideration of an information disclosure statement or other matter after allowance and the petition would constitute the filing of a
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 134 

 continuation application if the examiner determines that new issues are raised. Response: The final rules do not provide for the filing of a CPA in an international design application. The Office created CPAs for all applications following the change in patent term for utility applications from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from filing. The primary reason for creating CPAs was to minimize any reduction in patent term for continuing utility applications caused by new application processing by eliminating the need to assign the continuing application a new application number and filing date. See 1996 Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure, 61 FR 49820, 49825 (Sept. 23, 1996). A CPA is a streamlined continuation or divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 whose filing date is the date on which the request for a CPA is filed. See § 1.53(d)(2) (providing that the filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed). A request for a CPA constitutes a request to expressly abandon the earlier application and to use the file jacket and contents of the prior application. See § 1.53(d)(2)(iv), (v). Subsequently, in the American Inventors Protection Act, Congress added request for continued examination (RCE) practice for utility and plant applications, while simultaneously providing for publication of applications 18 months from filing and provisional rights from the date of publication. See Request for Continued Examination Practice and Changes to Provisional Application Practice, 65 FR 50092-101 (Aug. 16, 2000); 35 U.S.C. 132(b). Since an RCE is not a new application that is separately published, the provisional rights period continues from the original publication date. See 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(1). RCE practice was not extended to U.S. design applications, which are not published. See 35 U.S.C. 132 ed. note. The Office eventually eliminated CPA practice for all applications except U.S. design applications. See Elimination of Continued Prosecution Application Practice as to Utility and Plant Patent Applications, 68 FR 32376-81 (May 30, 2003). A patent issuing on a CPA would not be entitled to provisional rights based on the prior publication of the international design application under the treaty, as asserted in the comment. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(1), provisional rights begin on "the date of publication of the application for such patent" under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). As previously explained, a CPA is a continuation or divisional application of the prior application. See § 1.53(d)(1) (providing that a continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation- in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under the paragraph); § 1.78(d)(4) (providing that the request for a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior-filed application). The filing of a CPA operates as an express abandonment of the prior application as of the filing date of the CPA request. See § 1.53(d)(2)(v) (providing that a CPA is a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date of the request for a CPA). Accordingly, a patent issuing on a CPA obtains provisional rights only from the date of its publication, not from the date of publication of the earlier application. U.S. design applications are not published and do not qualify for provisional rights. See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(A)(iv); 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(1). Thus, even if the filing of a CPA from an international design application were permitted, a design patent issuing from the CPA would not be entitled to provisional rights because the CPA is not published. While an RCE is not a new application, and thus permits extension of the provisional rights period from the date of the earlier publication, RCE practice is not available for U.S. design applications. A CPA of an earlier U.S. design application is possible because the prior application has already been reviewed by the Office for compliance with the same statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the CPA, thus eliminating the need for a separate review of the CPA. See § 1.53(d) (1)(ii) (providing that the prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b)). No such efficiencies
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 135 

 exist so as to permit the filing of a CPA from an international design application. The Office will not be performing a formalities review of international design applications designating the United States prior to examination. Instead, the International Bureau will review international design applications for compliance with the applicable treaty requirements. A CPA is a U.S. design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16, not an international design application under the Hague Agreement. Consequently, a CPA is subject to different statutory and regulatory requirements than international design applications. Compare 35 U.S.C. 171-173 with 35 U.S.C. 381-390; compare 37 CFR 1.151-1.155 with final rules §§ 1.1001-1.1071. For example, an international design application and CPA are subject to different filing date requirements (compare 35 U.S.C. 171(c) with 35 U.S.C. 384) and different content requirements (e.g., regular U.S. design applications are required under § 1.153 to include a title; no such formal requirement applies to international design applications). In addition, as discussed above, an international design application is published and entitles the holder to provisional rights, whereas a CPA does not. Compare 35 U.S.C. 390 with 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(A)(iv); see also 35 U.S.C. 154(d). Given these differing requirements, the same opportunity for streamlined continuation practice does not exist. Furthermore, international design applications filed with the Office will be assigned a U.S. application number having a series code unique to international design applications to distinguish such applications from other applications filed with the Office. Allowing a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 to use an application number associated with international design applications may lead to confusion and errors in processing the application under the different requirements applicable to international design applications and applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. In addition, use of the same application number for both the CPA and the international design application would significantly complicate the changes needed to the Office's IT systems to support the small number of applications that would be affected. For example, the notice of allowance, processing of issue fee payments, and formal objections that may be applicable under examination differ between international design applications and design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. The fees associated with the filing of a CPA are not lower than the fees associated with the filing of a continuing design application, as stated in the comment. Rather, the fees are the same. See § 1.53(d)(3) (providing that the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a continued prosecution application filed under this paragraph are the basic filing fee as set forth in § 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in § 1.16(l), and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.16(p)). The comment asserts that not permitting CPAs appears to be contrary to the explicit language and intent of 35 U.S.C. chapter 38 and the other portions of the proposed rules. The comment points to, inter alia, 35 U.S.C. 382(c), 35 U.S.C. 384(a), and the proposed rules with respect to examination and general filing requirements, which are modeled after the current treatment of 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 applications before the Office. The PLTIA, including the provisions cited to in the comment, generally provides for applicability of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 to international design applications designating the United States except where otherwise provided under title 35, United States Code, or required by the Hague Agreement or Hague Agreement Regulations. CPA practice, however, is not a requirement of 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Rather, as previously explained, CPAs were created by regulation as a streamlined continuation practice under 35 U.S.C. 120. A CPA is a U.S. application and is just like any other design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Not permitting CPAs claiming priority to international design applications is not inconsistent with any provision of 35 U.S.C. chapter 38. The Office has not adopted, as recommended by the commentor, rules to prioritize or expedite examination of a continuation application of an international design application in limited circumstances. Prioritizing or expediting examination of continuation applications
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 136 

 would present an administrative burden for the Office in identifying those continuation applications that qualify for expedited treatment. Furthermore, Office records show that CPAs are currently filed in less than 3% of design applications. Also, the number of international design applications is anticipated to be, at least initially, a small fraction of total design applications filed with the Office. In 2013, 2,990 international design applications were filed via the Hague system, whereas 35,077 design applications were filed with the Office under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. The Office is reluctant to develop new and complicated procedures at this time to accommodate a handful of applications, especially since the procedures could negatively impact administrative efficiency in processing all continuing applications filed with the Office. Applicants desiring expedited examination in continuation applications may utilize the "rocket docket" procedure pursuant to § 1.155. The Office also has not adopted rules to provide for a conditional petition procedure to allow for consideration of an information disclosure statement (or other issue) after allowance wherein the petition would constitute the filing of a continuation application if the examiner determines a new issue is raised. Section 1.97 currently provides for consideration of an information disclosure statement filed after allowance but on or before payment of the issue fee, when accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(p) and statement required under § 1.97(e). See § 1.97(d). Office records indicate that in 2012, only 14 CPAs were filed with an information disclosure statement on or after the date of payment of the issue fee. Further, this number corresponds to the larger pool of regular design applications and would be expected to be even less for the smaller pool of international design applications. As with the suggestion to expedite continuations, the Office is hesitant to develop new and complicated procedures at this time to account for a nominal number of potentially affected international design applications, as this may negatively impact administrative efficiency in processing all design applications. The Office intends to reconsider the need for further procedures after the Office gains more experience in processing international design applications and as the number of filings increases. Comment 4: One comment questioned whether the filing of a divisional application of an international design application (or electing not to file a divisional application) will have a "file wrapper estoppel" impact on interpretation of the claim of a patent on the international design application, given the recent Federal Circuit decision in the Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 13-1199 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2014), holding that principles of file wrapper estoppel are applicable to design patents. Response: The doctrine of file wrapper estoppel is applied by courts to limit the application of the doctrine of equivalents in determining patent infringement. The doctrine of file wrapper estoppel prohibits a patent owner from recapturing subject matter deliberately surrendered during the course of proceedings in the Office to obtain the patent. Since it is the courts, not the Office, that determine the reach of file wrapper estoppel, the Office cannot predict whether courts will apply file wrapper estoppel where an applicant files a divisional application of an international design application or elects not to file a divisional application. The Office notes, however, that the PLTIA generally provides for parity in treatment between design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 and international design applications designating the United States. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 389(d) ("The Director may issue a patent based on an international design application designating the United States, in accordance with the provisions of this title. Such patent shall have the force and effect of a patent issued on an application filed under chapter 16."). Local Representation Comment 5: Several comments expressed concern that unscrupulous
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 137 

 persons not registered to practice before the Office ("non- practitioners") may utilize the Hague system to procure U.S. design patents and not be subject to the U.S. disciplinary rules set forth in 37 CFR part 11 concerning representation of others before the Office. One comment encouraged the Office to work with the International Bureau to implement procedures for disciplining and sanctioning representatives filing international design applications through the International Bureau. The comment also suggested that even if unscrupulous non-practitioners are subject to the disciplinary rules set forth in 37 CFR part 11 or other judicial discipline or sanction, the effectiveness of appropriate discipline or sanction could be reduced where such non-practitioners are based outside the United States. Accordingly, the comment recommends the promotion of high standards of conduct for practitioners and non-practitioners in all jurisdictions. One comment requested the Office to be mindful of new scams that may arise to exploit the Hague Agreement and to work with the International Bureau and Federal Trade Commission to address strategies for stopping such scams if and when they arise. Response: The Office appreciates the concerns raised in the comment. The Office notes that a party presenting a paper to the Office, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, certifies, among other things, that statements made are true and formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. See § 11.18(b). The Office maintains jurisdiction over persons not registered or recognized to practice before the Office who provide or offer to provide any legal services before the Office. See § 11.19(a). Such jurisdiction extends to practice that may include presentation to the Office or any of its officers or employees relating to a client's rights, privileges, duties, or responsibilities under the laws or regulations administered by the Office for the grant of a patent and includes preparing necessary documents in contemplation of filing the documents with the Office, corresponding and communicating with the Office, and representing a client through documents or at interviews, hearings, and meetings, as well as communicating with and advising a client concerning matters pending or contemplated to be presented before the Office. See § 11.5(b). The Office recognizes that the provisions of 37 CFR part 11 may not serve to deter all improper activity or conduct in connection with applications filed under the Hague Agreement. The Office will endeavor to explore with the International Bureau steps that may be taken to address the concerns raised in the comment and to promote high standards of conduct for practitioners and non-practitioners in all jurisdictions. The Office also notes that it maintains a Scam Prevention page on its Web site (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/scam_prevention/index.jsp), which contains relevant information regarding scam prevention and includes links to the Federal Trade Commission Web site where individuals may find information regarding consumer protection resources. Furthermore, under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the Office does provide, through this Web site, a public forum for the publication of complaints concerning invention promoters/promotion firms. In addition, the Web site identifies known scams concerning non-Office solicitations. Warnings of scam solicitations have also been published by the International Bureau in connection with international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. See, e.g., WIPO, Warning: Requests for Payment of Fees, http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/warning/pct_warning.html. Comment 6: One comment questioned whether the duty of disclosure under § 1.56 is applicable to non-practitioners and the applicants they represent who obtain U.S. design patents on international design applications through dealings exclusively with the International Bureau. Response: Section 1.56(a) provides that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability. Section 1.56(c) further provides that
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 138 

 individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application for purposes of § 1.56 are: each inventor named in the application; each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. An international design application designating the United States has the effect of a U.S. patent application and thus is subject to § 1.56. See 35 U.S.C. 385 ("An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16."). See also 35 U.S.C. 389(b) ("All questions of substance and, unless otherwise required by the treaty and Regulations, procedures regarding an international design application designating the United States shall be determined as in the case of applications filed under chapter 16."). Thus, pursuant to § 1.56(c), non-practitioners who are substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of an international design application designating the United States and who are associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application, have a duty of disclosure under § 1.56. The duty under § 1.56 does not apply to applicants per se, as an applicant may be a legal entity and thus not an "individual" as required under § 1.56(a), but the duty does apply to inventors (who may be applicants) and to every person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. See also MPEP 2001.01 ("The word `with' appears before `the assignee' and `anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign' to make clear that the duty applies only to individuals, not to organizations. For instance, the duty of disclosure would not apply to a corporation or institution as such. However, it would apply to individuals within the corporation or institution who were substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application, and actions by such individuals may affect the rights of the corporation or institution."). Examination Comment 7: One comment suggested that a rule should be added to confirm the Office's ability to continue to prosecute an international design application after the Office sends a notification of refusal, for example, where new prior art is discovered after the notification of refusal is sent. Response: The Office agrees that prosecution may continue in an international design application after the Office sends a notification of refusal and that the Office may, where appropriate, apply newly discovered prior art to reject the claimed invention in a subsequent Office action. International design applications that designate the United States are required to be examined pursuant to title 35, United States Code. See 35 U.S.C. 389(a); § 1.1062(a). Reexamination of the application, if applicant persists in his or her claim for a patent after receiving notice of a rejection, is provided by statute. See 35 U.S.C. 132. Further, a patent shall issue only if on examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law. See 35 U.S.C. 131. Examination procedures and rules applicable to domestic applications apply to international design applications that designate the United States, except as otherwise provided in the rules or required by the Hague Agreement Articles or Regulations. See 35 U.S.C. 389(b); § 1.1061. Thus, for example, any reply under § 1.111 to a notification of refusal rejecting the claimed design will be considered and the application again examined, and the applicant notified in an Office action which, if appropriate, may be made final. See §§ 1.112, 1.113. Accordingly, no rule changes are
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 139 

 necessary. Comment 8: One comment questioned whether consideration has been given as to whether an improper broadening of the disclosure would result where formal drawings are provided to the Office in compliance with U.S. practice that do not include a portion of the design as shown in a photograph (or other depiction) that was originally filed in the international design application, or show a portion of the photograph content in dotted lines. The comment also asked whether guidelines will be forthcoming. Response: International design applications designating the United States are subject to the same substantive conditions for patentability as regular U.S. applications, including the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The Office will consider whether an amendment to the specification, drawings, or claim is improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 132 for reasons of new matter in accordance with the MPEP 1504.04 ("An amendment to the claim which has no antecedent basis in the specification and/or drawings as originally filed introduces new matter because that subject matter is not described in the application as originally filed. The claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications [filed] prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). An amendment to the disclosure not affecting the claim (such as environment in the title or in broken lines in the drawings), which has no antecedent basis in the application as originally filed, must be objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 as lacking support in the application as originally filed and a requirement must be made to cancel the new matter."). The Office will consider whether a particular design application, including any amended drawings, meets the written description requirements on a case-by-case basis. The Office recently hosted a roundtable discussion regarding application of the written description requirement to amended or continuation design claims. See Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable Event on the Written Description Requirement for Design Applications, 79 FR 7171 (Feb. 6, 2014). The notice and roundtable sought public input regarding specific instances where an amendment in a design application may raise a question as to whether the applicant had possession of the newly claimed design at the time of filing the original application. The Office will consider the written comments received in response to that notice and roundtable and will evaluate when drafting any further guidance. Comment 9: One comment questioned what operative dates will be used for response times for communications transmitted to the International Bureau for forwarding to the applicant. Response: Communications transmitted by the Office to the International Bureau for forwarding to the applicant will indicate a time period for reply, where a reply to the communication is required by the Office. See, e.g., § 1.1063(a)(4). Comment 10: One comment requested that the Office clarify that the rules applicable to design applications filed under chapter 16 apply to design applications that are converted from international design applications pursuant to § 1.1052. Response: This final rule revises § 1.1052 to include a new paragraph (d) to clarify that an international design application converted under § 1.1052 is subject to the regulations applicable to a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Comment 11: Several comments requested that the Office clarify that continuing applications, including divisional applications, that claim benefit to an international design application under § 1.78 are subject to the rules governing domestic national applications. Response: A continuing application that claims benefit under § 1.78 to an international design application may be filed as a national application or as an international design application. See 35 U.S.C. 386(c). A continuing design application, including a divisional design application, filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 is subject to the rules governing domestic national design applications, e.g., §§ 1.151-1.155. In contrast, a continuing application filed as an international design application is subject to the requirements of the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 140 

 Hague Agreement and the rules applicable to international design applications. Comment 12: One comment requested that the Office notify the applicant of the need to file a certified copy of a foreign priority document required under § 1.55 and the time limit to furnish the certified copy. The comment indicated that many applicants may not have retained U.S. counsel and may be unaware of the requirement to provide the certified copy prior to payment of the issue fee. Response: Where an application includes a priority claim under § 1.55 but the required certified copy of the priority document has not been filed, examination procedures provide for applicant notification that the certified copy has not been filed as required by § 1.55. See MPEP 214.03, 1302.06. In addition, the requirement in former § 1.55(g) for payment of the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i) where the certified copy is filed after the date the issue fee is paid has been eliminated from § 1.55 in this final rule. Furthermore, § 1.55(g) in this final rule sets forth a petition procedure to permit the filing of the certified copy in a patented design application upon a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g). The petition procedure in § 1.55(g) corresponds to the petition procedure under § 1.55(f) applicable to utility applications. Comment 13: One comment requested that a continuing application from an international design application not be subject to the petition requirement under § 1.84(a)(2) to accept color drawings and/or photographs, as the drawings and/or photographs would have already been accepted in the international design application. The comment further requests that the Office consider eliminating the petition requirement under § 1.84(a)(2) altogether. Response: This comment has been adopted as to design applications. Section 1.84(a)(2) has been amended to remove the requirement for a petition in order for the Office to accept color drawings or photographs in design applications. Applicants will still be required to include the reference to the color drawings or photographs in the specification as set forth in § 1.84(a)(2)(iii) to provide notice in the patent of the submission of color drawings or photographs. Because there is rarely a need to file color drawings or photographs in utility applications, and there are operational concerns with permitting color drawings or photographs in utility applications, the Office has not eliminated the petition requirement for color drawings or photographs in utility applications at this time but may reconsider the matter at a later date. International Fees Comment 14: Several comments requested that the Office quickly transfer international fees paid through the Office to the International Bureau to minimize the risk of currency fluctuations. One comment further requested that the Office receive same-day confirmation of fees received by WIPO in Swiss currency, indicating a concern that fee deficiency may result in a delayed registration date and, consequently, a delayed filing date in the United States under § 1.1023. Response: The Office intends to transfer international fees to the International Bureau as quickly as possible. The Office plans to transmit international design application fees once the Office receives the international design application, the applicant has paid the Office the transmittal fee, and the Office has transmitted the international design application to the International Bureau. The Office does not transmit fees directly to the International Bureau in Swiss currency. Rather, such fees are forwarded to the Department of Treasury for transmission to the International Bureau. Accordingly, the Office cannot receive same-day confirmation of fees received by the International Bureau in Swiss currency. Applicants may establish a debit account directly with the International Bureau (see Response to Comment 15) and receive confirmation upon electronic payment of fees. Alternatively, applicants may simply wait for the invitation from the International Bureau and pay the international fees directly to the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 141 

 International Bureau. The international registration date is not dependent upon the date of payment of the prescribed fees. See Article 10(2); Rule 14(2). Accordingly, the later payment of a fee deficiency will not result in a later international registration date and, consequently, will not affect the filing date in the United States under § 1.1023. Comment 15: One comment requested that applicants be advised as to any options pertaining to a deposit account with WIPO to account for fee discrepancies. Response: Section 1.1031(d)(1) provides for payment of international fees directly to the International Bureau and references Administrative Instruction 801, which sets forth the various methods of payment accepted by the International Bureau, including payment by deposit account established with the International Bureau. In addition, the international design application DM/1 form includes a fee payment section that informs applicants of the option to use a deposit account established with the International Bureau. Comment 16: One comment requested that the Office prompt applicants filing international design applications through the Office with a link to pay fees directly to WIPO to avoid fee discrepancies. Response: The system used by the International Bureau to process international design applications and applicable fees does not currently have the capability to electronically accept fees except where applicants file the application directly with the International Bureau through its e-filing interface. The Office will endeavor to work with the International Bureau to provide for such functionality in the future. Comment 17: One comment requested that the Office amend § 1.1031 to include a provision that international registration renewal fees are not required to maintain a U.S. design patent in force. In addition, to avoid public confusion and detrimental reliance by giving the impression that a U.S. design patent may have lapsed or expired if the registration is not renewed, the comment requests that the Office encourage the International Bureau to adjust its current Certificate of Renewal and renewal system to reflect U.S. practice. Response: This comment is adopted. The final rule revises § 1.1031 to include a new paragraph (e) to provide that payment of the fees referred to in Article 17 and Rule 24 for renewing an international registration ("renewal fees") is not required to maintain a U.S. patent issuing on an international design application in force. The Office appreciates the concerns with respect to the current Certificate of Renewal process as it relates to U.S. practice and will endeavor to work with the International Bureau on this matter. Comment 18: One comment suggests that the Office provide a new rule expressly stating that the International Bureau handles international registration renewal fees and that the Office will not process those fees. Response: This comment is adopted. The final rule revises § 1.1031 to include a new paragraph (e) to provide that renewal fees, if required, must be submitted directly to the International Bureau and that any renewal fee submitted to the Office will not be transmitted to the International Bureau. Any renewal fee paid to the Office will be refunded. Miscellaneous Comment 19: One comment requested the Office to modify proposed rule § 1.1027 by moving the second sentence concerning the prohibition on deferment of publication to a new rule so that the prohibition is made more prominent. The comment also requested that the Office promptly inform applicants of improper requests for deferment of publication. Response: This final rule revises § 1.1027 as suggested and adds a new rule § 1.1028 ("Deferment of publication") to make more prominent that a request for deferment of publication is not permitted in an international design application that designates the United States or other country that does not permit deferment of
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 142 

 publication. With regard to review of requests for deferment and notification to applicants of improper requests under the Hague Agreement, the International Bureau performs this function. See Article 11(3). Comment 20: One comment requested that the Office consider the option under the Hague Agreement of receiving all deferred international registrations at the time of international registration. The comment suggested that a copy of the international registration may be useful in making a determination as to whether the design is "patented" for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a). The comment also raises as a further consideration the prior art effect of a deferred international registration under 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA and AIA) and suggests that the international registration may be prior art at the time of publication, and consequently, no advance notice of the deferred international registration would be needed for examination as U.S. design examiners have access to the WIPO Bulletin online for search purposes. Response: Where publication of the international registration has been deferred, the Office cannot receive a copy of the international registration at the time of international registration from the International Bureau. While Article 10(5) allows a designated office to obtain a copy of the international registration immediately after registration, the United States cannot be designated where publication has been deferred. See § 1.1028. Where the United States is designated (and thus there is no deferment of publication), the Office will receive the published international registration approximately six months from the date of international registration, or immediately after international registration where immediate publication was requested. See Rule 17(1). At the present time, the Office does not plan to obtain a copy of the international registration from the International Bureau prior to publication pursuant to Article 10(5), as the Office is prohibited from sending a notification of refusal prior to publication of the international registration, thus limiting the usefulness in obtaining a copy of the international registration prior to publication. With regard to use of an unpublished international registration as a "patented" invention for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a), a secret patent is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) until it is available to the public. See In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); MPEP 2126; Examination Guidelines for Implementing the First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 43759, 43764 (July 26, 2012) ("The phrase `patented' in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has the same meaning as `patented' in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b)."). Comment 21: One comment complimented the Office on its road show educational programs in general, and particularly the Forum that was held January 14, 2014, to discuss the proposed rule changes to implement the Hague Agreement. The comment suggested that the Office should have more frequent road shows, education programs, and webinars concerning the Hague Agreement. Response: The Office will endeavor to have additional public outreach concerning implementation of the Hague Agreement. Comment 22: One comment requested that the Office provide a rule that states that no design rights under an international design application that designates the United States exist until a U.S. design patent actually issues from the international design application. The comment asserts that there could be instances where a patent does not issue within the period set forth in Rule 18(c), or a refusal is inadvertently not sent during the refusal period, raising an inconsistency between the lack of issuance of a U.S. design patent and Article 14(2)(a). Response: This final rule adds § 1.1071 to clarify that a grant of protection for an industrial design that is the subject of an international registration shall only arise in the United States through the issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389(d) or 171, and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 153. As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (see 78 FR 71870, 71886) and in this final rule,
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 143 

 the Office does not regard the failure to send a notification of refusal within the period referenced in § 1.1062(b) to confer patent rights or other effect under Article 14(2). The PLTIA provides for enforceable rights upon issuance of a patent. See 35 U.S.C. 389(d); 35 U.S.C. 385. Comment 23: Two comments suggested that U.S. law should be amended to provide for publication of design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 and that patent term for design patents should be 20 years from filing rather than 15 years from issuance. Response: As the exclusion from publication of design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 and patent term are statutory provisions (see 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(A)(iv); 35 U.S.C. 173), any changes would require legislation. Rulemaking Considerations A. Administrative Procedure Act: This rulemaking implements title I of the PLTIA and the Hague Agreement. The changes in this rulemaking (except for the setting of some fees) establish procedures for the filing, processing, and examination of international design applications and revise existing rules of practice to account for international design applications in accordance with title I of the PLTIA and to ensure that the rules of practice are consistent with the Hague Agreement. In addition, as to the applicability dates for certain provisions in existing rules, this final rule makes those applicability dates more accessible by stating them directly in the body of those rules. Therefore, the changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See Bachow Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. 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 are procedural where they do not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.); 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.). Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for these changes are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law). See 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))). The Office, however, published the proposed changes for comment because it sought the benefit of the public's views on the Office's implementation of title I of the PLTIA and the Hague Agreement. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: This final rule revises the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA. The changes to the rules of practice in this final rule involve: (1) The establishment of procedures for the filing, processing, and examination of international design applications; and (2) the revision of existing rules of practice to account for international design applications. In addition, as to the applicability dates for certain provisions in existing rules, this final rule makes those applicability dates more accessible by stating them directly in the body of those rules. The final rules impose no additional required burdens on any applicant, since seeking design protection by filing an international design application is merely an optional alternative to seeking design protection by filing a national design application. The final rules will benefit applicants by streamlining the process for obtaining international protection of an industrial design in Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by the filing of a single, standardized international design application in a single language. As of 2014, there are over 60 Contracting Parties that are members to the Hague system. In 2013, the most recent year available, 2,990 international design applications were filed via the Hague system. In
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 144 

 that same year, 2,734 international design registrations issued through the Hague system. In comparison, in fiscal year 2013, the USPTO received 35,077 design applications and issued 22,453 design patents. Approximately 50% of the design applications filed in 2013 were filed by an entity claiming small entity status. None of the final rules disproportionately affect small entities. The fees and requirements referenced in this final rulemaking do not have a significant economic impact because they are comparable to the fees and requirements an applicant has in a national design application. Section 385 requires that an "international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes from its filing date . . . of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16." Such fees include an issue fee, if applicable, paid directly to the USPTO, and a petition fee for review of a filing date. The USPTO sets only two new fees based on cost recovery: (i) A transmittal fee, payable to the USPTO for transmitting the international design application to WIPO when an applicant files the application through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing, and (ii) a petition fee when an applicant seeks to have the Office convert an international design application to a national design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. The transmittal fee is set at $120. The USPTO estimates that approximately 1,000 applications designating the United States will be filed annually either through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing or with WIPO. The USPTO estimates that 900 of these applications will be filed through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing and will require payment of a transmittal fee. Of these, the Office estimates that approximately 450 will be filed by an entity that is a small entity based on USPTO design application filings in 2013. The petition fee is set at $180. The USPTO estimates that approximately 20 applicants will pay the petition fee annually, and of these, approximately 10 will be filed by an applicant that is a small entity. The other fees mentioned in this final rulemaking are not USPTO fees at all, but rather, are created through the treaty process and WIPO's Common Regulations. For example, the USPTO does not collect and retain at the time of payment the following fees: WIPO Basic Fee, WIPO Publication Fee, WIPO Extra Word Fee, and Designation Fees (including the United States individual designation fee first part). Thus, the final rules referencing non-USPTO fees impose no economic impact upon applicants. The petition fee for excusable delay is set forth by statute, 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7), as amended by 202(b)(1)(A) of the PLTIA, 126 Stat. 1535, at $850 for small entities and $1,700 for all other entities, beginning on December 18, 2013. Finally, it is noted that the Office published a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the notice of proposed rulemaking. See 78 FR 71870, 71888-89 (Nov. 29, 2013). The Office received no public comments concerning the certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that changes in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This final rule 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. 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,
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 145 

 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 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). F. 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). G. 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). H. 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). I. 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). J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988). K. 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 document 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 document is not expected to result in a "major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this document 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. M. 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. N. 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
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 146 

 technical standards. O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (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 involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The collection of information involved in this final rule has been submitted as a new information collection under OMB control number 0651-0075 ("International Design Applications (Hague Agreement)"). The collection will be available at the OMB's Information Collection Review Web site (www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain). The Office is submitting this information collection to OMB for its review and approval because this notice of final rulemaking will add the following collections of information for an international design application filed through the Office or filed with the International Bureau and designating the United States as a Contracting Party in which the applicant would like protection: (1) Application for International Registration (§ 1.1022) (2) Claim and Reproductions (§ 1.1021) (3) Transmittal Letter (§§ 1.4, 1.5) (4) Appointment of a Representative (§ 1.1041) (5) Petition to Excuse a Failure to Comply with a Time Limit (§ 1.1051) (6) Petition to Convert to a Design Application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 (§ 1.1052) (7) Petition to Review a Filing Date (§ 1.1023(b)) (8) Fee Authorization (§ 1.25) (9) Petition to the Commissioner (§§ 1.181, 1.182, and 1.183) (10) Transmittal of Issue Fee to USPTO for an International Design Application (§ 1.311) (11) Declaration of Inventorship for Purposes of Designation of the United States (§ 1.63) (12) Substitute Statement in Lieu of a Declaration of Inventorship for the Purpose of Designating the United States (§ 1.64) (13) Assignment Cover Sheet (§§ 3.11, 3.21, 3.24, 3.26, 3.28, 3.31, 3.34, and 3.41) I. Summary This final rule will collect information necessary to process and examine international design applications pursuant to the Hague Agreement and the PLTIA. The Hague Agreement facilitates intellectual property protection for industrial designs through a single standardized application filed directly with the International Bureau of WIPO or indirectly through an appropriate Contracting Party's Office, such as the USPTO. The Hague Agreement is administered by the International Bureau of WIPO located in Geneva, Switzerland. When an applicant files an international design application pursuant to this rulemaking, the International Bureau ascertains whether the international design application complies with the requirements of the treaty, records the international design application in the international register, and publishes the international registration in the International Designs Bulletin. The International Bureau then provides a copy of the publication of the international registration to each Contracting Party designated by the applicant, and thus will provide a copy to the USPTO when the United States is designated by the applicant. When the USPTO receives the international registration from the International Bureau, the USPTO will perform the substantive examination of the international design application in the same manner that it examines a domestic design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. Because the new application procedure for international design applications created through this final rule merely provides applicants with a new avenue by which they may file a design application, several items in this collection displace responses that the USPTO counts in other information collections, specifically Information Collections 0651-0032 (Initial Patent Applications), 0651-0043 (Patent and
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 147 

 Trademark Financial Transactions), and 0651-0072 (America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee Adjustments). As such, the USPTO will temporarily double count those responses in both this collection and their original collections. The USPTO will update the burden inventories of the existing information collections to correct the double counting with the appropriate adjustments to the number of responses. II. Data Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary for design applicants to file an international design application under the Hague Agreement. An applicant may file through the Office as an office of indirect filing pursuant 35 U.S.C. 382, or with the International Bureau directly. In either case, the applicant will designate the Contracting Party(ies) in which the applicant desires protection for the industrial design(s). The Office uses this information to process international design applications designating the United States and filed under the Hague Agreement. Title of Collection: International Design Applications (Hague Agreement). OMB Control Number: 0651-0075. Form Number(s): WIPO DM/1. WIPO is in the process of creating forms for three items covered by this collection of information (declaration of inventorship, substitute statement in lieu of declaration, and assignment cover sheet). Once the USPTO receives copies of these forms, the Office will provide those forms to OMB for review. Type of Review: New Collection. Method of Collection: By mail, hand delivery, or electronically to the Office. Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profits, not-for-profit institutions, farms, Federal Government, and state, local or tribal governments. Estimated Number of Respondents: 4935 per year. Estimated Time per Response: The Office estimates that the responses in this collection will take the public approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to 6 hours. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 13,128 hours per year. Estimated Total Annual (Hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $4,987,992 per year. Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $2,740,011 per year. Of the non-hour costs added by this burden, $2,739,350 are filing fees and $661 are postage fees. Of the $2,739,350 filing fees, $2,130,270 are fees new to this rulemaking, whereas $609,080 are fees that the USPTO currently counts in other information collections and which the USPTO temporarily double-counts in this collection until it can update its existing collections. III. Solicitation The Office solicited comments to (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Office's estimate of the burden; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of collecting the information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office received no comments from the members of the public regarding the PRA. List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents,
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 148 

 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. 37 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Patents, Trademarks. 37 CFR Part 5 Classified information, Foreign relations, Inventions and patents. 37 CFR Part 11 Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents, Lawyers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 37 CFR Part 41 Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents, Lawyers. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR parts 1, 3, 5, 11, and 41 are amended as follows: PART 1 - RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES . 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted. . 2. Section 1.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements. (a) * * * (2) Correspondence in and relating to a particular application or other proceeding in the Office. See particularly the rules relating to the filing, processing, or other proceedings of national applications in subpart B of this part; of international applications in subpart C of this part; of ex parte reexaminations of patents in subpart D of this part; of supplemental examination of patents in subpart E of this part; of extension of patent term in subpart F of this part; of inter partes reexaminations of patents in subpart H of this part; of international design applications in subpart I of this part; and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in parts 41 and 42 of this chapter. * * * * * . 3. Section 1.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 1.5 Identification of patent, patent application, or patent- related proceeding. (a) No correspondence relating to an application should be filed prior to receipt of the assigned application number (i.e., U.S. application number, international application number, or international registration number as appropriate). When correspondence directed to the Patent and Trademark Office concerns a previously filed application for a patent, it must identify on the top page in a conspicuous location, the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456), or the serial number and filing date assigned to that application by the Patent and Trademark Office, or the international application number of the international application, or the international registration number of an international design application. Any correspondence not containing such identification will be returned to the sender where a return address is available. The returned correspondence will be accompanied with a cover letter, which will indicate to the sender that if the returned correspondence is
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 149 

 resubmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office within two weeks of the mail date on the cover letter, the original date of receipt of the correspondence will be considered by the Patent and Trademark Office as the date of receipt of the correspondence. Applicants may use either the Certificate of Mailing or Transmission procedure under § 1.8 or the Priority Mail Express[supreg] procedure under § 1.10 for resubmissions of returned correspondence if they desire to have the benefit of the date of deposit in the United States Postal Service. If the returned correspondence is not resubmitted within the two-week period, the date of receipt of the resubmission will be considered to be the date of receipt of the correspondence. The two-week period to resubmit the returned correspondence will not be extended. In addition to the application number, all correspondence directed to the Patent and Trademark Office concerning applications for patent should also state the name of the first listed inventor, the title of the invention, the date of filing the same, and if known, the group art unit or other unit within the Patent and Trademark Office responsible for considering the correspondence and the name of the examiner or other person to which it has been assigned. * * * * * . 4. Section 1.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (6) to read as follows: § 1.6 Receipt of correspondence. * * * * * (d) * * * (3) Correspondence that cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission as specified in § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) through (D), (F), (I), and (K) and § 1.8(a)(2)(iii)(A), except that a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile; (4) Color drawings submitted under §§ 1.81, 1.83 through 1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.173, 1.437, or 1.1026; * * * * * (6) Correspondence to be filed in an application subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5.1 through 5.5 of this chapter and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application; * * * * * . 5. Section 1.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(I) and (J) and adding paragraph (a)(2)(i)(K) to read as follows: § 1.8 Certificate of mailing or transmission. (a) * * * (2) * * * (i) * * * (I) The filing of a third-party submission under § 1.290; (J) The calculation of any period of adjustment, as specified in § 1.703(f); and (K) The filing of an international design application. * * * * * . 6. Section 1.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and adding paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) to read as follows: § 1.9 Definitions. (a)(1) A national application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 150 

 * * * * * (3) A nonprovisional application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. national application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10. * * * * * (l) Hague Agreement as used in this chapter means the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs adopted at Geneva, Switzerland, on July 2, 1999, and Hague Agreement Article as used in this chapter means an Article under the Hague Agreement. (m) Hague Agreement Regulations as used in this chapter means the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement, and Hague Agreement Rule as used in this chapter means one of the Hague Agreement Regulations. (n) An international design application as used in this chapter means an application for international registration of a design filed under the Hague Agreement. Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to "design application" or "application for a design patent" in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States. . 7. Section 1.14 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1), revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (vii) and (a)(2)(iv), and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: § 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence. (a) * * * (1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations: * * * * * (ii) Published abandoned applications. The file of an abandoned published application is available to the public as set forth in § 1.11(a). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application, or a specific document in the file of the published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b). (iii) Published pending applications. A copy of the application-as- filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of a pending published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b). If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application that has been published, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section. (iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 151 

 in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). (v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section. (vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section. (vii) When a petition for access or a power to inspect is required. Applications that were not published or patented, that are not the subject of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or are not identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, are not available to the public. If an application is identified in the file contents of another application, but not the published patent application or patent itself, a granted petition for access (see paragraph (i)) or a power to inspect (see paragraph (c) of this section) is necessary to obtain the application, or a copy of the application. (2) * * * (iv) Whether another application claims the benefit of the application (i.e., whether there are any applications that claim the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 152 

 benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, the numerical identifier of the application, the specified relationship between the applications (e.g., continuation), whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented, and whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). * * * * * (j) International design applications. (1) With respect to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as a designated office (§ 1.1003) for national processing, the records associated with the international design application may be made available as provided under paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. (2) With respect to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as an office of indirect filing (§ 1.1002), the records of the international design application may be made available under paragraph (j)(1) of this section where contained in the file of the international design application maintained by the Office for national processing. Also, if benefit of the international design application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) in a U.S. patent or published application, the file contents of the application may be made available to the public, or the file contents of the application, a copy of the application-as-filed, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). . 8. Section 1.16 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b), (l), and (p) to read as follows: § 1.16 National application filing, search, and examination fees. * * * * * (b) Basic fee for filing each application under 35 U.S.C. 111 for an original design patent: * * * * * (l) Search fee for each application under 35 U.S.C. 111 for an original design patent: * * * * * (p) Examination fee for each application under 35 U.S.C. 111 for an original design patent: * * * * * . 9. Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (f), (g), (i)(1), and (m) and adding paragraph (t) to read as follows: § 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees. * * * * * (f) For filing a petition under one of the following sections which refers to this paragraph: By a micro entity (§ 1.29)............................ $100.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a))......................... 200.00 By other than a small or micro entity.................. 400.00 § 1.36(a) - for revocation of a power of attorney by fewer than all of the applicants. § 1.53(e) - to accord a filing date. § 1.182 - for decision on a question not specifically provided for in an application for patent. § 1.183 - to suspend the rules in an application for patent. § 1.741(b) - to accord a filing date to an application under § 1.740 for extension of a patent term. § 1.1023 - to review the filing date of an international design application.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 153 

 (g) For filing a petition under one of the following sections which refers to this paragraph: By a micro entity (§ 1.29)............................ $50.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a))......................... 100.00 By other than a small or micro entity.................. 200.00 § 1.12 - for access to an assignment record. § 1.14 - for access to an application. § 1.46 - for filing an application on behalf of an inventor by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. § 1.55(f) - for filing a belated certified copy of a foreign application. § 1.55(g) - for filing a belated certified copy of a foreign application. § 1.57(a) - for filing a belated certified copy of a foreign application. § 1.59 - for expungement of information. § 1.103(a) - to suspend action in an application. § 1.136(b) - for review of a request for extension of time when the provisions of § 1.136(a) are not available. § 1.377 - for review of decision refusing to accept and record payment of a maintenance fee filed prior to expiration of a patent. § 1.550(c) - for patent owner requests for extension of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings. § 1.956 - for patent owner requests for extension of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings. § 5.12 - for expedited handling of a foreign filing license. § 5.15 - for changing the scope of a license. § 5.25 - for retroactive license. * * * * * (i) Processing fees. (1) For taking action under one of the following sections which refers to this paragraph: By a micro entity (§ 1.29)............................ $35.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a))......................... 70.00 By other than a small or micro entity.................. 140.00 § 1.28(c)(3) - for processing a non-itemized fee deficiency based on an error in small entity status. § 1.29(k)(3) - for processing a non-itemized fee deficiency based on an error in micro entity status. § 1.41(b) - for supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors in an application without either an application data sheet or the inventor's oath or declaration, except in provisional applications. § 1.48 - for correcting inventorship, except in provisional applications. § 1.52(d) - for processing a nonprovisional application filed with a specification in a language other than English. § 1.53(c)(3) - t convert a provisional application filed under § 1.53(c) into a nonprovisional application under § 1.53(b). § 1.71(g)(2) - for processing a belated amendment under § 1.71(g). § 1.102(e) - for requesting prioritized examination of an application. § 1.103(b) - for requesting limited suspension of action, continued prosecution application for a design patent (§ 1.53(d)). § 1.103(c) - for requesting limited suspension of action, request for continued examination (§ 1.114). § 1.103(d) - for requesting deferred examination of an application. § 1.291(c)(5) - for processing a second or subsequent protest by the same real party in interest.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 154 

 § 3.81 - for a patent to issue to assignee, assignment submitted after payment of the issue fee. * * * * * (m) For filing a petition for the revival of an abandoned application for a patent, for the delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, for the delayed response by the patent owner in any reexamination proceeding, for the delayed payment of the fee for maintaining a patent in force, for the delayed submission of a priority or benefit claim, for the extension of the twelve-month (six-month for designs) period for filing a subsequent application (§§ 1.55(c), 1.55(e), 1.78(b), 1.78(c), 1.78(e), 1.137, 1.378, and 1.452), or for filing a petition to excuse applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in an international design application (§ 1.1051): By a small entity (§ 1.27(a)) or micro entity (§ 1.29).... $850.00 By other than a small or micro entity...................... 1,700.00 * * * * * (t) For filing a petition to convert an international design application to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 (§ 1.1052): $180.00. . 10. Section 1.18 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: § 1.18 Patent post allowance (including issue) fees. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) For an international design application designating the United States, where an issue fee is paid through the International Bureau (Hague Agreement Rule 12(3)(c)) as an alternative to paying the issue fee under paragraph (b)(1) of this section: The amount specified on the Web site of the World Intellectual Property Organization, currently available at http://www.wipo.int/hague, at the time the fee is paid. * * * * * . 11. Section 1.25 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 1.25 Deposit accounts. * * * * * (b) Filing, issue, appeal, international-type search report, international application processing, international design application fees, petition, and post-issuance fees may be charged against these accounts if sufficient funds are on deposit to cover such fees. A general authorization to charge all fees, or only certain fees, set forth in §§ 1.16 through 1.18 to a deposit account containing sufficient funds may be filed in an individual application, either for the entire pendency of the application or with a particular paper filed. A general authorization to charge fees in an international design application set forth in § 1.1031 will only be effective for the transmittal fee (§ 1.1031(a)). An authorization to charge fees under § 1.16 in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be treated as an authorization to charge fees under § 1.492. An authorization to charge fees set forth in § 1.18 to a deposit account is subject to the provisions of § 1.311(b). An authorization to charge to a deposit account the fee for a request for reexamination pursuant to § 1.510 or 1.913 and any other fees required in a reexamination proceeding in a patent may also be filed with the request for reexamination, and an authorization to charge to a deposit account the fee for a request for supplemental examination pursuant to § 1.610 and any other fees required in a supplemental examination proceeding in a patent may also be filed with
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 155 

 the request for supplemental examination. An authorization to charge a fee to a deposit account will not be considered payment of the fee on the date the authorization to charge the fee is effective unless sufficient funds are present in the account to cover the fee. * * * * * . 12. Section 1.27 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: § 1.27 Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Assertion by payment of the small entity basic filing, basic transmittal, basic national fee, international search fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application. The payment, by any party, of the exact amount of one of the small entity basic filing fees set forth in § 1.16(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the small entity transmittal fee set forth in § 1.445(a)(1), the small entity international search fee set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) to a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office in the exact amount established for that Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rule 16, or the small entity basic national fee set forth in § 1.492(a), will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status even if the type of basic filing, basic transmittal, or basic national fee is inadvertently selected in error. The payment, by any party, of the small entity first part of the individual designation fee for the United States to the International Bureau (§ 1.1031) will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. * * * * * . 13. Section 1.29 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 1.29 Micro entity status. * * * * * (e) Micro entity status is established in an application by filing a micro entity certification in writing complying with the requirements of either paragraph (a) or (d) of this section and signed either in compliance with § 1.33(b), in an international application filed in a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.455, or in an international design application by a person authorized to represent the applicant under § 1.1041 before the International Bureau where the micro entity certification is filed with the International Bureau. Status as a micro entity must be specifically established in each related, continuing and reissue application in which status is appropriate and desired. Status as a micro entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent, regardless of the relationship of the applications or patents. The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53 (d)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status for the continuing or reissue application. * * * * * . 14. Section 1.32 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 156 

 § 1.32 Power of attorney. * * * * * (d) A power of attorney from a prior national application for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a continuing application may have effect in the continuing application if a copy of the power of attorney from the prior application is filed in the continuing application unless: * * * * * . 15. Section 1.41 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 1.41 Inventorship. * * * * * (f) The inventorship of an international design application designating the United States is the creator or creators set forth in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. . 16. Section 1.46 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 1.46 Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. * * * * * (b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the application must contain an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. If an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). * * * * * (c)(1) Correction or update in the name of the applicant. Any request to correct or update the name of the applicant under this section must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the correct or updated name of the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2). A change in the name of the applicant recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii) will be effective to change the name of the applicant in a nonprovisional international design application. (2) Change in the applicant. Any request to change the applicant under this section after an original applicant has been specified must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2) and comply with §§ 3.71 and 3.73 of this title. * * * * * . 17. Section 1.53 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 157 

 § 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application. * * * * * (b) Application filing requirements - Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation- in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78. * * * * * (c) * * * (4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or § 1.78 of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications. (d) * * * (1) * * * (ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i); and * * * * * . 18. Section 1.55 is revised to read as follows: § 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. (a) In general. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may claim priority to one or more prior foreign applications under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b) and this section. (b) Time for filing subsequent application. The nonprovisional application must be: (1) Filed not later than twelve months (six months in the case of a design application) after the date on which the foreign application was filed, subject to paragraph (c) of this section (a subsequent application); or (2) Entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) Delayed filing of subsequent application. If the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but within two months from the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition pursuant to this paragraph, if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority under this paragraph filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 158 

 subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. Any petition to restore the right of priority under this paragraph must include: (1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted; (2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and (3) A statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. (d) Time for filing priority claim - (1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The claim for priority must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application in an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. The claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)) and must identify the foreign application to which priority is claimed by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is: (i) An application for a design patent; or (ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000. (2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. (e) Delayed priority claim. Unless such claim is accepted in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or 386(b) not presented in the manner required by paragraph (d) or (m) of this section during pendency and within the time period provided by paragraph (d) of this section (if applicable) is considered to have been waived. If a claim for priority is considered to have been waived under this section, the claim may be accepted if the priority claim was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept a delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or 386(b) must be accompanied by: (1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or 386(b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted; (2) A certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section applies; (3) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and (4) A statement that the entire delay between the date the priority claim was due under this section and the date the priority claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. (f) Time for filing certified copy of foreign application - (1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, in an original
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 159 

 application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after March 16, 2013, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. The time period in this paragraph does not apply in a design application. (2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. (3) If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified paragraph (f)(1) of this section in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or within the period specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, and an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section is not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g). (g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application. (1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323. (2) The Office may require that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application be filed earlier than otherwise provided in this section: (i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding; (ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or (iii) When deemed necessary by the examiner. (3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except: (i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding; (ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or (iii) When specifically required by the examiner. (4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. (h) Certified copy in another U.S. patent or application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 160 

 will also be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. (i) Foreign intellectual property office participating in a priority document exchange agreement. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if: (1) The foreign application was filed in a foreign intellectual property office participating with the Office in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement (participating foreign intellectual property office), or a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy; (2) The claim for priority is presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and the applicant provides the information necessary for the participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application; (3) The copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign application is filed, within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section; and (4) The applicant files in a separate document a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy where, although the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. The request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the subsequent application by the application number, day, month, and year of its filing in which a copy of the foreign application was filed. The request must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), or four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or the request must be accompanied by a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section. (j) Interim copy. The requirement in paragraph (f) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if: (1) A copy of the original foreign application clearly labeled as "Interim Copy," including the specification, and any drawings or claims upon which it is based, is filed in the Office together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and stating that the copy filed in the Office is a true copy of the original application as filed in the foreign country (or intellectual property authority); (2) The copy of the foreign application and separate cover sheet are filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section; and
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 161 

 (3) A certified copy of the foreign application is filed within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (k) Requirements for certain applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, other than a nonprovisional international design application, claims priority to a foreign application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the nonprovisional application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the nonprovisional application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the nonprovisional application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. (l) Inventor's certificates. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may under certain circumstances claim priority on the basis of one or more applications for an inventor's certificate in a country granting both inventor's certificates and patents. To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor's certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant, when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration. The affidavit or declaration must include a specific statement that, upon an investigation, he or she is satisfied that to the best of his or her knowledge, the applicant, when filing the application for the inventor's certificate, had the option to file an application for either a patent or an inventor's certificate as to the subject matter of the identified claim or claims forming the basis for the claim of priority. (m) Time for filing priority claim and certified copy of foreign application in an international design application designating the United States. In an international design application designating the United States, the claim for priority may be made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim, unless made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations, must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim and certified copy must be furnished in accordance with the time period and other conditions set forth in paragraph (g) of this section. (n) Applications filed before September 16, 2012. Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1), and (i)(2) of this section that any priority claim be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), this requirement in paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1), and (i)(2) of this section will be satisfied by the presentation of such priority claim in the oath or declaration under § 1.63 in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before September 16, 2012, or resulting from an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before September 16, 2012. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to any priority claim submitted for a petition under paragraph (c) of this section to restore the right of priority to a foreign application. (o) Priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b). The right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 162 

 (p) Time periods in this section. The time periods set forth in this section are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and § 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4). . 19. Section 1.57 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) and the introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 1.57 Incorporation by reference. (a) * * * (4) A certified copy of the previously filed application must be filed in the Office, unless the previously filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363, or the previously filed application is a foreign priority application and the conditions set forth in § 1.55(i) are satisfied with respect to such foreign priority application. The certified copy of the previously filed application, if required by this paragraph, must be filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, or be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g). (b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s). * * * * * (4) Any amendment to an international design application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application. * * * * * . 20. Section 1.63 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: § 1.63 Inventor's oath or declaration. * * * * * (d)(1) A newly executed oath or declaration under § 1.63, or substitute statement under § 1.64, is not required under §§ 1.51(b)(2) and 1.53(f), or under §§ 1.497 and 1.1021(d), for an inventor in a continuing application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with § 1.78 of an earlier-filed application, provided that an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, or substitute statement under § 1.64, was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application, and a copy of such oath, declaration, or substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed, is submitted in the continuing application. * * * * * . 21. Section 1.76 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(5), and (b)(6) to read as follows:
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 163 

 § 1.76 Application data sheet. (a) Application data sheet. An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets that may be submitted in a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), a nonprovisional international design application, or a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and must be submitted when required by § 1.55 or 1.78 to claim priority to or the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386. An application data sheet must be titled "Application Data Sheet." An application data sheet must contain all of the section headings listed in paragraph (b) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, with any appropriate data for each section heading. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the application for which it has been submitted. (b) * * * (5) Domestic benefit information. This information includes the application number, the filing date, the status (including patent number if available), and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and § 1.78. (6) Foreign priority information. This information includes the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed. Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and § 1.55. * * * * * . 22. Section 1.78 is revised to read as follows: § 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross- references to other applications. (a) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or an international application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and this section. (1) The nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States must be: (i) Filed not later than twelve months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, subject to paragraph (b) of this section (a subsequent application); or (ii) Entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. (2) Each prior-filed provisional application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor. In addition, each prior-filed provisional application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in § 1.53(c), and the basic filing fee set forth in § 1.16(d) must have been paid for such provisional application within the time period set forth in § 1.53(g). (3) Any nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications must contain, or be amended to contain, a reference to each such prior-filed provisional application, identifying it by the provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number). If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). (4) The reference required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section must
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 164 

 be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application. If the later-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, failure to timely submit the reference is considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of the prior-filed provisional application. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is: (i) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000; or (ii) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before November 29, 2000. (5) If the prior-filed provisional application was filed in a language other than English and both an English-language translation of the prior-filed provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate were not previously filed in the prior-filed provisional application, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file, in the prior-filed provisional application, the translation and the statement. If the notice is mailed in a pending nonprovisional application, a timely reply to such a notice must include the filing in the nonprovisional application of either a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application, or an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)) eliminating the reference under paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the prior-filed provisional application, or the nonprovisional application will be abandoned. The translation and statement may be filed in the provisional application, even if the provisional application has become abandoned. (6) If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the nonprovisional application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the nonprovisional application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the nonprovisional application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. (b) Delayed filing of the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States. If the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section but within two months from the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the benefit of the provisional application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition pursuant to this paragraph, if the delay in filing the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section was
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 165 

 unintentional. (1) A petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application under this paragraph filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application, and any petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application under this paragraph must include: (i) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to the prior-filed provisional application in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)) identifying it by provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number), unless previously submitted; (ii) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and (iii) A statement that the delay in filing the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the twelve-month period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. (2) The restoration of the right of priority under PCT Rule 26bis.3 to a provisional application does not affect the requirement to include the reference required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the provisional application in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 within the time period provided by paragraph (a)(4) of this section to avoid the benefit claim being considered waived. (c) Delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and paragraph (a)(3) of this section is presented in an application after the time period provided by paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application may be accepted if the reference identifying the prior-filed application by provisional application number was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application must be accompanied by: (1) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the prior-filed provisional application, unless previously submitted; (2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and (3) A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the date the benefit claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. (d) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and this section. (1) Each prior-filed application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor. In addition, each prior-filed application must either be: (i) An international application entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11 and designating the United States; (ii) An international design application entitled to a filing date in accordance with § 1.1023 and designating the United States; or (iii) A nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is entitled to a filing date as set forth in § 1.53(b) or (d) for which the basic filing fee set forth in § 1.16 has been paid within the pendency of the application. (2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 166 

 § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation- in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. (3)(i) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section must be submitted during the pendency of the later- filed application. (ii) If the later-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is: (A) An application for a design patent; (B) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000; or (C) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before November 29, 2000. (iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, failure to timely submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section is considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the prior-filed application. (4) The request for a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior-filed application. The identification of an application by application number under this section is the identification of every application assigned that application number necessary for a specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every such application assigned that application number. (5) Cross-references to other related applications may be made when appropriate (see § 1.14), but cross-references to applications for which a benefit is not claimed under title 35, United States Code, must not be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). (6) If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, other than a nonprovisional international design application, claims the benefit of the filing date of a nonprovisional application or an international application designating the United States filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 167 

 after March 16, 2013, is presented in the later-filed application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if either: (i) The application claims the benefit of a nonprovisional application in which a statement under § 1.55(k), paragraph (a)(6) of this section, or this paragraph that the application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 has been filed; or (ii) The applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the later filed application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. (7) Where benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application or an international design application which designates but did not originate in the United States, the Office may require a certified copy of such application together with an English translation thereof if filed in another language. (e) Delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section is presented after the time period provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed copending nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States may be accepted if the reference required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed application must be accompanied by: (1) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section to the prior-filed application, unless previously submitted; (2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and (3) A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under paragraph (d)(3) of this section and the date the benefit claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. (f) Applications containing patentably indistinct claims. Where two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. (g) Applications or patents under reexamination naming different inventors and containing patentably indistinct claims. If an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application naming different inventors are owned by the same person and contain patentably indistinct claims, and there is no statement of record indicating that the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the Office may require the applicant or assignee to state whether the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on such date, and if not, indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor, as applicable. Even if the claimed inventions were commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the patentably indistinct claims may be rejected under the doctrine of double patenting in view of such commonly owned or assigned applications or patents under reexamination. (h) Applications filed before September 16, 2012. Notwithstanding
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 168 

 the requirement in paragraphs (a)(3) and (d)(2) of this section that any specific reference to a prior-filed application be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), this requirement in paragraph (a)(3) and (d)(2) of this section will be satisfied by the presentation of such specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before September 16, 2012, or resulting from an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before September 16, 2012. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to any specific reference submitted for a petition under paragraph (b) of this section to restore the benefit of a provisional application. (i) Petitions required in international applications. If a petition under paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of this section is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then such petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as having been filed in the international application. (j) Benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon. (k) Time periods in this section. The time periods set forth in this section are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and § 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4). . 23. Section 1.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (y) to read as follows: § 1.84 Standards for drawings. (a) * * * (2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following: (i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h); (ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the Office electronic filing system or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system; and (iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. * * * * * (y) Types of drawings. See § 1.152 for design drawings, § 1.1026 for international design reproductions, § 1.165 for plant drawings, and § 1.173(a)(2) for reissue drawings. . 24. Section 1.85 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 169 

 follows: § 1.85 Corrections to drawings. * * * * * (c) If a corrected drawing is required or if a drawing does not comply with § 1.84 or an amended drawing submitted under § 1.121(d) in a nonprovisional international design application does not comply with § 1.1026 at the time an application is allowed, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a three-month period of time from the mail date of the notice of allowability within which the applicant must file a corrected drawing in compliance with § 1.84 or 1.1026, as applicable, to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)). . 25. Section 1.97 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § 1.97 Filing of information disclosure statement. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; (4) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114; or (5) Within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) in an international design application. * * * * * . 26. Section 1.105 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 1.105 Requirements for information. (a)(1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example: * * * * * . 27. Section 1.109 is revised to read as follows: § 1.109 Effective filing date of a claimed invention under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. (a) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent, other than in a reissue application or reissued patent, is the earliest of: (1) The actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or (2) The filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority or the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386. (b) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in a reissue application or a reissued patent is determined by deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the patent for which reissue was sought. . 28. Section 1.114 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3) through (5) and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 170 

 § 1.114 Request for continued examination. * * * * * (e) * * * (3) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before June 8, 1995, or an international application that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 371; (4) An application for a design patent; (5) An international design application; or (6) A patent under reexamination. . 29. Section 1.121 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows: § 1.121 Manner of making amendments in applications. * * * * * (d) Drawings. One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84 or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled "Replacement Sheet." Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as "New Sheet." All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper. * * * * * . 30. Section 1.130 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 1.130 Affidavit or declaration of attribution or prior public disclosure under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. * * * * * (d) Applications and patents to which this section is applicable. The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time: (1) A claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013; or (2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013. . 31. Section 1.131 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art. * * * * * (d) The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time: (1) A claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013; or (2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 171 

 * * * * * . 32. Section 1.137 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2) to read as follows: § 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (ii) The period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. (2) Any terminal disclaimer pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must also apply to any patent granted on a continuing utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, or a continuing design application, that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the application for which revival is sought. * * * * * . 33. Section 1.155 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 1.155 Expedited examination of design applications. (a) * * * (1) The application must include drawings in compliance with § 1.84, or for an international design application that designates the United States, must have been published pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10(3); * * * * * . 34. Section 1.175 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 1.175 Inventor's oath or declaration for a reissue application. * * * * * (f)(1) The requirement for the inventor's oath or declaration for a continuing reissue application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with § 1.78 of an earlier-filed reissue application may be satisfied by a copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed reissue application, provided that: * * * * * . 35. Section 1.211 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 1.211 Publication of applications. * * * * * (b) Provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) shall not be published, and design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16, international design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 38, and reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 25 shall not be published under this section. * * * * * . 36. Subpart I to part 1 is added to read as follows: Subpart I - International Design Application General Information
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 172 

 Sec. 1.1001 Definitions related to international design applications. 1.1002 The United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing. 1.1003 The United States Patent and Trademark Office as a designated office. 1.1004 The International Bureau. 1.1005 Display of currently valid control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Who May File an International Design Application 1.1011 Applicant for international design application. 1.1012 Applicant's Contracting Party. The International Design Application 1.1021 Contents of the international design application. 1.1022 Form and signature. 1.1023 Filing date of an international design application in the United States. 1.1024 The description. 1.1025 The claim. 1.1026 Reproductions. 1.1027 Specimens. 1.1028 Deferment of publication. Fees 1.1031 International design application fees. Representation 1.1041 Representation in an international design application. 1.1042 Correspondence respecting international design applications filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing. Transmittal of the International Design Application to the International Bureau 1.1045 Procedures for transmittal of international design application to the International Bureau. Relief From Prescribed Time Limits; Conversion to a Design Application Under 35 U.S.C. Chapter 16 1.1051 Relief from prescribed time limits. 1.1052 Conversion to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. National Processing of International Design Applications 1.1061 Rules applicable. 1.1062 Examination. 1.1063 Notification of Refusal. 1.1064 One independent and distinct design. 1.1065 Corrections and other changes in the International Register. 1.1066 Correspondence address for a nonprovisional international design application. 1.1067 Title, description, and the inventor's oath or declaration. 1.1068 Statement of grant of protection. 1.1070 Notification of Invalidation. 1.1071 Grant of protection for an industrial design only upon issuance of a patent. Subpart I - International Design Application
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 173 

 General Information § 1.1001 Definitions related to international design applications. (a) Article as used in this subpart means an article of the Hague Agreement; (b) Regulations as used in this subpart, when capitalized, means the "Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement"; (c) Rule as used in this subpart, when capitalized, means one of the Regulations; (d) Administrative Instructions as used in this subpart means the Administrative Instructions referred to in Rule 34; (e) 1960 Act as used in this subpart means the Act signed at the Hague on November 28, 1960, of the Hague Agreement; (f) Other terms and expressions in subpart I not defined in this section are as defined in Article 1, Rule 1, and 35 U.S.C. 381. § 1.1002 The United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing. (a) The United States Patent and Trademark Office, as an office of indirect filing, shall accept international design applications where the applicant's Contracting Party is the United States. (b) The major functions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing include: (1) Receiving and according a receipt date to international design applications; (2) Collecting and, when required, transmitting fees due for processing international design applications; (3) Determining compliance with applicable requirements of part 5 of this chapter; and (4) Transmitting an international design application to the International Bureau, unless prescriptions concerning national security prevent the application from being transmitted. § 1.1003 The United States Patent and Trademark Office as a designated office. (a) The United States Patent and Trademark Office will act as a designated office ("United States Designated Office") for international design applications in which the United States has been designated as a Contracting Party in which protection is sought. (b) The major functions of the United States Designated Office include: (1) Accepting for national examination international design applications which satisfy the requirements of the Hague Agreement, the Regulations, and the regulations; (2) Performing an examination of the international design application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. chapter 16; and (3) Communicating the results of examination to the International Bureau. § 1.1004 The International Bureau. (a) The International Bureau is the World Intellectual Property Organization located at Geneva, Switzerland. It is the international intergovernmental organization which acts as the coordinating body under the Hague Agreement and the Regulations. (b) The major functions of the International Bureau include: (1) Receiving international design applications directly from applicants and indirectly from an office of indirect filing; (2) Collecting required fees and crediting designation fees to the accounts of the Contracting Parties concerned; (3) Reviewing international design applications for compliance with
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 174 

 prescribed formal requirements; (4) Translating international design applications into the required languages for recordation and publication; (5) Registering international designs in the International Register where the international design application complies with the applicable requirements; (6) Publishing international registrations in the International Designs Bulletin; and (7) Sending copies of the publication of the international registration to each designated office. § 1.1005 Display of currently valid control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (a) Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the collection of information in this subpart has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0651-0075. (b) 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 Office of Management and Budget control number. This section constitutes the display required by 44 U.S.C. 3512(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(i) for the collection of information under Office of Management and Budget control number 0651- 0075 (see 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(ii)(D)). Who May File an International Design Application § 1.1011 Applicant for international design application. (a) Only persons who are nationals of the United States or who have a domicile, a habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of the United States may file international design applications through the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (b) Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office will accept international design applications filed by any person referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, an international design application designating the United States may be refused by the Office as a designated office if the applicant is not a person qualified under 35 U.S.C. chapter 11 to be an applicant. § 1.1012 Applicant's Contracting Party. In order to file an international design application through the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing, the United States must be applicant's Contracting Party (Articles 4 and 1(xiv)). The International Design Application § 1.1021 Contents of the international design application. (a) Mandatory contents. The international design application shall be in English, French, or Spanish (Rule 6(1)) and shall contain or be accompanied by: (1) A request for international registration under the Hague Agreement (Article 5(1)(i)); (2) The prescribed data concerning the applicant (Article 5(1)(ii) and Rule 7(3)(i) and (ii)); (3) The prescribed number of copies of a reproduction or, at the choice of the applicant, of several different reproductions of the industrial design that is the subject of the international design application, presented in the prescribed manner; however, where the
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 175 

 industrial design is two-dimensional and a request for deferment of publication is made in accordance with Article 5(5), the international design application may, instead of containing reproductions, be accompanied by the prescribed number of specimens of the industrial design (Article 5(1)(iii)); (4) An indication of the product or products that constitute the industrial design or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used, as prescribed (Article 5(1)(iv) and Rule 7(3)(iv)); (5) An indication of the designated Contracting Parties (Article 5(1)(v)); (6) The prescribed fees (Article 5(1)(vi) and Rule 12(1)); (7) The Contracting Party or Parties in respect of which the applicant fulfills the conditions to be the holder of an international registration (Rule 7(3)(iii)); (8) The number of industrial designs included in the international design application, which may not exceed 100, and the number of reproductions or specimens of the industrial designs accompanying the international design application (Rule 7(3)(v)); (9) The amount of the fees being paid and the method of payment, or instructions to debit the required amount of fees to an account opened with the International Bureau, and the identification of the party effecting the payment or giving the instructions (Rule 7(3)(vii)); and (10) An indication of applicant's Contracting Party as required under Rule 7(4)(a). (b) Additional mandatory contents required by certain Contracting Parties. (1) Where the international design application contains the designation of a Contracting Party that requires, pursuant to Article 5(2), any of the following elements, then the international design application shall contain such required element(s): (i) Indications concerning the identity of the creator of the industrial design that is the subject of that application (Rule 11(1)); (ii) A brief description of the reproduction or of the characteristic features of the industrial design that is the subject of that application (Rule 11(2)); (iii) A claim (Rule 11(3)). (2) Where the international design application contains the designation of a Contracting Party that has made a declaration under Rule 8(1), then the international application shall contain the statement, document, oath or declaration specified in that declaration (Rule 7(4)(c)). (c) Optional contents. The international design application may contain: (1) Two or more industrial designs, subject to the prescribed conditions (Article 5(4) and Rule 7(7)); (2) A request for deferment of publication (Article 5(5) and Rule 7(5)(e)) or a request for immediate publication (Rule 17); (3) An element referred to in item (i) or (ii) of Article 5(2)(b) of the Hague Agreement or in Article 8(4)(a) of the 1960 Act even where that element is not required in consequence of a notification in accordance with Article 5(2)(a) of the Hague Agreement or in consequence of a requirement under Article 8(4)(a) of the 1960 Act (Rule 7(5)(a)); (4) The name and address of applicant's representative, as prescribed (Rule 7(5)(b)); (5) A claim of priority of one or more earlier filed applications in accordance with Article 6 and Rule 7(5)(c); (6) A declaration, for purposes of Article 11 of the Paris Convention, that the product or products which constitute the industrial design or in which the industrial design is incorporated have been shown at an official or officially recognized international exhibition, together with the place where the exhibition was held and the date on which the product or products were first exhibited there and, where less than all the industrial designs contained in the international design application are concerned, the indication of those industrial designs to which the declaration relates or does not relate (Rule 7(5)(d));
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 176 

 (7) Any declaration, statement or other relevant indication as may be specified in the Administrative Instructions (Rule 7(5)(f)); (8) A statement that identifies information known by the applicant to be material to the eligibility for protection of the industrial design concerned (Rule 7(5)(g)); (9) A proposed translation of any text matter contained in the international design application for purposes of recording and publication (Rule 6(4)). (d) Required contents where the United States is designated. In addition to the mandatory requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, an international design application that designates the United States shall contain or be accompanied by: (1) A claim (§§ 1.1021(b)(1)(iii) and 1.1025); (2) Indications concerning the identity of the creator (i.e., the inventor, see § 1.9(d)) in accordance with Rule 11(1); and (3) The inventor's oath or declaration (§§ 1.63 and 1.64). The requirements in §§ 1.63(b) and 1.64(b)(4) to identify each inventor by his or her legal name, mailing address, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from the mailing address, and the requirement in § 1.64(b)(2) to identify the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement will be considered satisfied by the presentation of such information in the international design application prior to international registration. § 1.1022 Form and signature. (a) The international design application shall be presented on the official form (Rules 7(1) and 1(vi)). (b) The international design application shall be signed by the applicant. § 1.1023 Filing date of an international design application in the United States. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the filing date of an international design application in the United States is the date of international registration determined by the International Bureau under the Hague Agreement (35 U.S.C. 384 and 381(a)(5)). (b) Where the applicant believes the international design application is entitled under the Hague Agreement to a filing date in the United States other than the date of international registration, the applicant may petition the Director under this paragraph to accord the international design application a filing date in the United States other than the date of international registration. Such petition must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f) and include a showing to the satisfaction of the Director that the international design application is entitled to such filing date. § 1.1024 The description. An international design application designating the United States must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 and preferably include a brief description of the reproduction pursuant to Rule 7(5)(a) describing the view or views of the reproductions. § 1.1025 The claim. The specific wording of the claim in an international design application designating the United States shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name of article) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted for purposes of the United States. § 1.1026 Reproductions.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 177 

 Reproductions shall comply with the requirements of Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions. § 1.1027 Specimens. Where a request for deferment of publication has been filed in respect of a two-dimensional industrial design, the international design application may include specimens of the design in accordance with Rule 10 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions. Specimens are not permitted in an international design application that designates the United States or any other Contracting Party which does not permit deferment of publication. § 1.1028 Deferment of publication. The international design application may contain a request for deferment of publication, provided the application does not designate the United States or any other Contracting Party which does not permit deferment of publication. Fees § 1.1031 International design application fees. (a) International design applications filed through the Office as an office of indirect filing are subject to payment of a transmittal fee (35 U.S.C. 382(b) and Article 4(2)) in the amount of $120. (b) The Schedule of Fees annexed to the Regulations (Rule 27(1)), a list of individual designation fee amounts, and a fee calculator may be viewed on the Web site of the World Intellectual Property Organization, currently available at http://www.wipo.int/hague. (c) The following fees required by the International Bureau may be paid either directly to the International Bureau or through the Office as an office of indirect filing in the amounts specified on the World Intellectual Property Organization Web site described in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) International application fees (Rule 12(1)); and (2) Fee for descriptions exceeding 100 words (Rule 11(2)). (d) The fees referred to in paragraph (c) of this section may be paid as follows: (1) Directly to the International Bureau in Swiss currency (see Administrative Instruction 801); or (2) Through the Office as an office of indirect filing, provided such fees are paid no later than the date of payment of the transmittal fee required under paragraph (a) of this section. Any payment through the Office must be in U.S. dollars. Applicants paying the fees in paragraph (c) of this section through the Office may be subject to a requirement by the International Bureau to pay additional amounts where the conversion from U.S. dollars to Swiss currency results in the International Bureau receiving less than the prescribed amounts. (e) Payment of the fees referred to in Article 17 and Rule 24 for renewing an international registration ("renewal fees") is not required to maintain a U.S. patent issuing on an international design application in force. Renewal fees, if required, must be submitted directly to the International Bureau. Any renewal fee submitted to the Office will not be transmitted to the International Bureau. Representation § 1.1041 Representation in an international design application. (a) The applicant may appoint a representative before the International Bureau in accordance with Rule 3. (b) Applicants of international design applications may be represented before the Office as an office of indirect filing by a practitioner registered (§ 11.6) or granted limited recognition
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 178 

 (§ 11.9(a) or (b)) to practice before the Office in patent matters. Such practitioner may act pursuant to § 1.34 or pursuant to appointment by the applicant. The appointment must be in writing signed by the applicant, must give the practitioner power to act on behalf of the applicant, and must specify the name and registration number or limited recognition number of each practitioner. An appointment of a representative made in the international design application pursuant to Rule 3(2) that complies with the requirements of this paragraph will be effective as an appointment before the Office as an office of indirect filing. § 1.1042 Correspondence respecting international design applications filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing. The applicant may specify a correspondence address for correspondence sent by the Office as an office of indirect filing. Where no such address has been specified, the Office will use as the correspondence address the address of applicant's appointed representative (§ 1.1041) or, where no representative is appointed, the address as specified in Administrative Instruction 302. Transmittal of International Design Application to the International Bureau § 1.1045 Procedures for transmittal of international design application to the International Bureau. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section and payment of the transmittal fee set forth in § 1.1031(a), transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau shall be made by the Office as provided by Rule 13(1). At the same time as it transmits the international design application to the International Bureau, the Office shall notify the International Bureau of the date on which it received the application. The Office shall also notify the applicant of the date on which it received the application and of the transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau. (b) No copy of an international design application may be transmitted to the International Bureau, a foreign designated office, or other foreign authority by the Office or the applicant, unless the applicable requirements of part 5 of this chapter have been satisfied. (c) Once transmittal of the international design application has been effected under paragraph (a) of this section, except for matters properly before the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an office of indirect filing or as a designated office, all further correspondence concerning the application should be sent directly to the International Bureau. The United States Patent and Trademark Office will generally not forward communications to the International Bureau received after transmittal of the application to the International Bureau. Any reply to an invitation sent to the applicant by the International Bureau must be filed directly with the International Bureau, and not with the Office, to avoid abandonment or other loss of rights under Article 8. Relief From Prescribed Time Limits; Conversion to a Design Application Under 35 U.S.C. Chapter 16 § 1.1051 Relief from prescribed time limits. (a) If the delay in an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to excuse the failure to act as to the United States. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by: (1) A copy of any invitation sent from the International Bureau
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 179 

 setting a prescribed time limit for which applicant failed to timely act; (2) The reply required under paragraph (c) of this section, unless previously filed; (3) The fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); (4) A certified copy of the originally filed international design application, unless a copy of the international design application was previously communicated to the Office from the International Bureau or the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing, and a translation thereof into the English language if it was filed in another language; (5) A statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this paragraph was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional; and (6) A terminal disclaimer (and fee as set forth in § 1.20(d)) required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to excuse the applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application upon petition filed pursuant to this section, to be considered timely, must be filed within two months of the decision refusing to excuse or within such time as set in the decision. Unless a decision indicates otherwise, this time period may be extended under the provisions of § 1.136. (c) Reply. The reply required may be: (1) The filing of a continuing application. If the international design application has not been subject to international registration, the reply must also include a grantable petition under § 1.1023(b) to accord the international design application a filing date; or (2) A grantable petition under § 1.1052, where the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing. (d) Terminal disclaimer. Any petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period beginning on the due date for the reply for which applicant failed to timely act and ending on the date of filing of the reply required under paragraph (c) of this section and must also apply to any patent granted on a continuing design application that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) to the application for which relief under this section is sought. § 1.1052 Conversion to a design application under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. (a) An international design application designating the United States filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing and meeting the requirements under § 1.53(b) for a filing date for an application for a design patent may, on petition under this section, be converted to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) and accorded a filing date as provided therein. A petition under this section must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(t) and be filed prior to publication of the international registration under Article 10(3). The conversion of an international design application to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) will not entitle applicant to a refund of the transmittal fee or any fee forwarded to the International Bureau, or the application of any such fee toward the filing fee, or any other fee, for the application for a design patent under § 1.53(b). The application for a design patent resulting from conversion of an international design application must also include the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(b)), the search fee (§ 1.16(l)), the examination fee (§ 1.16(p)), the inventor's oath or declaration (§ 1.63 or 1.64), and a surcharge if required by § 1.16(f).
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 180 

 (b) An international design application will be converted to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) if a decision on petition under this section is granted prior to transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau pursuant to § 1.1045. Otherwise, a decision granting a petition under this section will be effective to convert the international design application to an application for a design patent under § 1.53(b) only for purposes of the designation of the United States. (c) A petition under this section will not be granted in an abandoned international design application absent a grantable petition under § 1.1051. (d) An international design application converted under this section is subject to the regulations applicable to a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. National Processing of International Design Applications § 1.1061 Rules applicable. (a) The rules relating to applications for patents for other inventions or discoveries are also applicable to international design applications designating the United States, except as otherwise provided in this chapter or required by the Articles or Regulations. (b) The provisions of § 1.74, § 1.84, except for § 1.84(c), and §§ 1.152 through 1.154 shall not apply to international design applications. § 1.1062 Examination. (a) Examination. The Office shall make an examination pursuant to title 35, United States Code, of an international design application designating the United States. (b) Timing. For each international design application to be examined under paragraph (a) of this section, the Office shall, subject to Rule 18(1)(c)(ii), send to the International Bureau within 12 months from the publication of the international registration under Rule 26(3) a notification of refusal (§ 1.1063) where it appears that the applicant is not entitled to a patent under the law with respect to any industrial design that is the subject of the international registration. § 1.1063 Notification of refusal. (a) A notification of refusal shall contain or indicate: (1) The number of the international registration; (2) The grounds on which the refusal is based; (3) A copy of a reproduction of the earlier industrial design and information concerning the earlier industrial design, where the grounds of refusal refer to similarity with an industrial design that is the subject of an earlier application or registration; (4) Where the refusal does not relate to all the industrial designs that are the subject of the international registration, those to which it relates or does not relate; and (5) A time period for reply under §§ 1.134 and 1.136, where a reply to the notification of refusal is required. (b) Any reply to the notification of refusal must be filed directly with the Office and not through the International Bureau. The requirements of § 1.111 shall apply to a reply to a notification of refusal. § 1.1064 One independent and distinct design. (a) Only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a nonprovisional international design application. (b) If the requirements under paragraph (a) of this section are not satisfied, the examiner shall in the notification of refusal or other
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 181 

 Office action require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect one independent and distinct design for which prosecution on the merits shall be restricted. Such requirement will normally be made before any action on the merits but may be made at any time before the final action. Review of any such requirement is provided under §§ 1.143 and 1.144. § 1.1065 Corrections and other changes in the International Register. (a) The effects of any correction in the International Register by the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 22 in a pending nonprovisional international design application shall be decided by the Office in accordance with the merits of each situation, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed. A patent issuing from an international design application may only be corrected in accordance with the provisions of title 35, United States Code, for correcting patents. Any correction under Rule 22 recorded by the International Bureau with respect to an abandoned nonprovisional international design application will generally not be acted upon by the Office and shall not be given effect unless otherwise indicated by the Office. (b) A recording of a partial change in ownership in the International Register pursuant to Rule 21(7) concerning a transfer of less than all designs shall not have effect in the United States. § 1.1066 Correspondence address for a nonprovisional international design application. (a) Unless the correspondence address is changed in accordance with § 1.33(a), the Office will use as the correspondence address in a nonprovisional international design application the address according to the following order: (1) The correspondence address under § 1.1042; (2) The address of applicant's representative identified in the publication of the international registration; and (3) The address of the applicant identified in the publication of the international registration. (b) Reference in the rules to the correspondence address set forth in § 1.33(a) shall be construed to include a reference to this section for a nonprovisional international design application. § 1.1067 Title, description, and inventor's oath or declaration. (a) The title of the design must designate the particular article. Where a nonprovisional international design application does not contain a title of the design, the Office may establish a title. No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required in a nonprovisional international design application. (b) An international design application designating the United States must include the inventor's oath or declaration. See § 1.1021(d). If the applicant is notified in a notice of allowability that an oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, executed by or with respect to each named inventor has not been filed, the applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)). § 1.1068 Statement of grant of protection. Upon issuance of a patent on an international design application designating the United States, the Office may send to the International Bureau a statement to the effect that protection is granted in the United States to those industrial design or designs that are the subject of the international registration and covered by the patent.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 182 

 § 1.1070 Notification of Invalidation. (a) Where a design patent that was granted from an international design application is invalidated in the United States, and the invalidation is no longer subject to any review or appeal, the patentee shall inform the Office. (b) After receiving a notification of invalidation under paragraph (a) of this section or through other means, the Office will notify the International Bureau in accordance with Hague Rule 20. § 1.1071 Grant of protection for an industrial design only upon issuance of a patent. A grant of protection for an industrial design that is the subject of an international registration shall only arise in the United States through the issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389(d) or 171, and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 153. PART 3 - ASSIGNMENT, RECORDING AND RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE . 37. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2). . 38. Section 3.1 is amended by revising the definition of "Application" to read as follows: § 3.1 Definitions. * * * * * Application means a national application for patent, an international patent application that designates the United States of America, an international design application that designates the United States of America, or an application to register a trademark under section 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, or 15 U.S.C. 1126, unless otherwise indicated. * * * * * . 39. Section 3.21 is revised to read as follows: § 3.21 Identification of patents and patent applications. An assignment relating to a patent must identify the patent by the patent number. An assignment relating to a national patent application must identify the national patent application by the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/ 123,456). An assignment relating to an international patent application which designates the United States of America must identify the international application by the international application number; e.g., PCT/US2012/012345. An assignment relating to an international design application which designates the United States of America must identify the international design application by the international registration number or by the U.S. application number assigned to the international design application. If an assignment of a patent application filed under § 1.53(b) of this chapter is executed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the execution of the patent application, but before the patent application is filed, it must identify the patent application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the patent application intended. If an assignment of a provisional application under § 1.53(c) of this chapter is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the provisional application intended.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 183 

 PART 5 - SECRECY OF CERTAIN INVENTIONS AND LICENSES TO EXPORT AND FILE APPLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES . 40. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 41, 181-188, as amended by the Patent Law Foreign Filing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1567; the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act of 1978, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; and the delegations in the regulations under these Acts to the Director (15 CFR 370.10(j), 22 CFR 125.04, and 10 CFR 810.7), as well as the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 1322, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005). . 41. Section 5.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 5.1 Applications and correspondence involving national security. * * * * * (b) Definitions. (1) Application as used in this part includes provisional applications (§ 1.9(a)(2) of this chapter), nonprovisional applications (§ 1.9(a)(3)), international applications (§ 1.9(b)), or international design applications (§ 1.9(n)). (2) Foreign application as used in this part includes, for filing in a foreign country, foreign patent office, foreign patent agency, or international agency (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361, § 1.412) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382, § 1.1002)) any of the following: An application for patent, international application, international design application, or application for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model. * * * * * . 42. Section 5.3 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 5.3 Prosecution of application under secrecy orders; withholding patent. * * * * * (d) International applications and international design applications under secrecy order will not be mailed, delivered, or otherwise transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant. International applications under secrecy order will be processed up to the point where, if it were not for the secrecy order, record and search copies would be transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant. * * * * * . 43. Section 5.11 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) through (c), (e)(3)(i), and (f) to read as follows: § 5.11 License for filing in, or exporting to, a foreign country an application on an invention made in the United States or technical data relating thereto. (a) A license from the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 is required before filing any application for patent including any
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 184 

 modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto or divisions thereof or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model, in a foreign country, foreign patent office, foreign patent agency, or any international agency (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361, § 1.412) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382, § 1.1002)), if the invention was made in the United States, and: (1) An application on the invention has been filed in the United States less than six months prior to the date on which the application is to be filed; or (2) No application on the invention has been filed in the United States. (b) The license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section would also authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes relating to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application without separately complying with the regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce), and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy). (c) Where technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, are being exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application, without the license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, or on an invention not made in the United States, the export regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce), and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy) must be complied with unless a license is not required because a United States application was on file at the time of export for at least six months without a secrecy order under § 5.2 being placed thereon. The term "exported" means export as it is defined in 22 CFR part 120, 15 CFR part 734, and activities covered by 10 CFR part 810. * * * * * (e) * * * (3) * * * (i) A license is not, or was not, required under paragraph (e)(2) of this section for the foreign application; * * * * * (f) A license pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section can be revoked at any time upon written notification by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. An authorization to file a foreign application resulting from the passage of six months from the date of filing of a United States patent application may be revoked by the imposition of a secrecy order. . 44. Section 5.12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 5.12 Petition for license. (a) Filing of an application on an invention made in the United States will be considered to include a petition for license under 35 U.S.C. 184 for the subject matter of the application. The filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a license is granted. If the initial automatic petition is not granted, a subsequent petition may be filed under paragraph (b) of this section. * * * * *
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 185 

 . 45. Section 5.13 is revised to read as follows: § 5.13 Petition for license; no corresponding application. If no corresponding national, international design, or international application has been filed in the United States, the petition for license under § 5.12(b) must also be accompanied by a legible copy of the material upon which a license is desired. This copy will be retained as a measure of the license granted. . 46. Section 5.14 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 5.14 Petition for license; corresponding U.S. application. * * * * * (c) Where the application to be filed or exported abroad contains matter not disclosed in the United States application or applications, including the case where the combining of two or more United States applications introduces subject matter not disclosed in any of them, a copy of the application as it is to be filed or exported abroad, must be furnished with the petition. If, however, all new matter in the application to be filed or exported is readily identifiable, the new matter may be submitted in detail and the remainder by reference to the pertinent United States application or applications. * * * * * . 47. Section 5.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(3), (b), (d), and (e) to read as follows: § 5.15 Scope of license. (a) Applications or other materials reviewed pursuant to §§ 5.12 through 5.14, which were not required to be made available for inspection by defense agencies under 35 U.S.C. 181, will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. This license permits subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements containing additional subject matter to, or divisions of, a foreign application, if such changes to the application do not alter the general nature of the invention in a manner that would require the United States application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181. Grant of this license authorizes the export and filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign patent agency or international patent agency when the subject matter of the foreign application corresponds to that of the domestic application. This license includes authority: * * * * * (3) To take any action in the prosecution of the foreign application provided that the adding of subject matter or taking of any action under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section does not change the general nature of the invention disclosed in the application in a manner that would require such application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 by including technical data pertaining to: (i) Defense services or articles designated in the United States Munitions List applicable at the time of foreign filing, the unlicensed exportation of which is prohibited pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and 22 CFR parts 120 through 130; or (ii) Restricted Data, sensitive nuclear technology or technology useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy, dissemination of which is subject to restrictions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Act of 1978, as implemented by the regulations for Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities, 10 CFR part 810, in effect at the time of foreign filing. (b) Applications or other materials which were required to be made
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 186 

 available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. Grant of this license authorizes the export and filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign patent agency or international patent agency. Further, this license includes authority to export and file all duplicate and formal papers in foreign countries or with foreign and international patent agencies and to make amendments, modifications, and supplements to, file divisions of, and take any action in the prosecution of the foreign application, provided subject matter additional to that covered by the license is not involved. * * * * * (d) In those cases in which no license is required to file or export the foreign application, no license is required to file papers in connection with the prosecution of the foreign application not involving the disclosure of additional subject matter. (e) Any paper filed abroad or transmitted to an international patent agency following the filing of a foreign application that changes the general nature of the subject matter disclosed at the time of filing in a manner that would require such application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 or that involves the disclosure of subject matter listed in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must be separately licensed in the same manner as a foreign application. Further, if no license has been granted under § 5.12(a) on filing the corresponding United States application, any paper filed abroad or with an international patent agency that involves the disclosure of additional subject matter must be licensed in the same manner as a foreign application. * * * * * PART 11 - REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE . 48. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 11 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 500, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 32, 41. . 49. Section 11.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii) to read as follows: § 11.10 Restrictions on practice in patent matters. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (iii) Particular patent or patent application means any patent or patent application, including, but not limited to, a provisional, substitute, international, international design, continuation, divisional, continuation-in-part, or reissue patent application, as well as any protest, reexamination, petition, appeal, interference, or trial proceeding based on the patent or patent application. * * * * * PART 41 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD . 50. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows: Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 3(a)(2)(A), 21, 23, 32, 41, 134, 135, and Pub. L. 112-29. . 51. Section 41.200 is revised by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 41.200 Procedure; pendency.
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 187 

 * * * * * (b) Any reference to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 135 in this subpart refers to the statute in effect on March 15, 2013, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Any reference to 35 U.S.C. 141 or 146 in this subpart refers to the statute applicable to the involved application or patent. * * * * * . 52. Section 41.201 is amended by revising the definition of "Constructive reduction to practice" and paragraph (2)(ii) of the definition for "Threshold issue" to read as follows: § 41.201 Definitions. * * * * * Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1), in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive reduction to practice that has been continuously disclosed through a chain of patent applications including in the involved application or patent. For the chain to be continuous, each subsequent application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119-121, 365, or 386. * * * * * Threshold issue means an issue that, if resolved in favor of the movant, would deprive the opponent of standing in the interference. Threshold issues may include: * * * * * (2) * * * (ii) Unpatentability for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112 of an involved application claim where the applicant suggested, or could have suggested, an interference under § 41.202(a). March 16, 2015 MICHELLE K. LEE Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 188 

Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program Between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks
 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program Between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks I. Background Beginning in July 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has partnered with several other offices in Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs. The PPH enables an applicant who receives a positive ruling on patent claims from one participating office to request accelerated prosecution of corresponding claims in another participating office, which allows the applicant to obtain a patentability decision in the second office more quickly. Furthermore, the PPH promotes patent application processing efficiency by allowing the examiner in the office of later examination (OLE) to reuse the search and examination results from the office of earlier examination (OEE), thereby reducing workload and duplication of effort. On January 6, 2014, the USPTO began participating in the Global PPH and IP5 PPH ("Global/IP5 PPH") pilot programs, which consolidated and replaced numerous earlier PPH programs, thereby streamlining and simplifying the PPH process for both applicants and Global/IP5 PPH participating offices. See Implementation of the Global and IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Programs with Participating Offices, 1400 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE 172 (March 18, 2014). Following discussions between the USPTO and the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM), the USPTO is implementing a PPH pilot program with the OSIM. The OSIM is not currently a Global/IP5 PPH participating office and is partnering with the USPTO in the PPH on a bilateral basis only. However, a PPH request submitted in the USPTO based on OSIM work product will be treated under the published Global/IP5 PPH standards as discussed in Section III below. II. Trial Period for the PPH Pilot Program with the OSIM The PPH pilot program with the OSIM will commence on April 15, 2015, and will run for a period of four (4) years ending on April 14, 2019. The trial period may be extended if necessary to adequately assess the feasibility of the PPH program. Both offices will continually evaluate the results of the PPH pilot program to determine whether and how the program should be modified. The offices also may terminate the PPH pilot program early if the volume of participation exceeds a manageable level, or for any other reason. Notice will be published if the PPH pilot program will be terminated. Unless the OSIM becomes a Global PPH participating office, any extension or termination of the Global/IP5 PPH program will have no effect on this PPH pilot program. III. Participation in the PPH Pilot Program with the OSIM in the USPTO Any request to participate in a PPH program in the USPTO based on OSIM work product is subject to the same requirements and procedures as, and will receive equivalent treatment to, a request made under the Global/IP5 PPH pilot program as set forth in the following notice: Implementation of the Global and IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Programs with Participating Offices, 1400 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE 172 (March 18, 2014). This PPH pilot program will also be subject to any modifications to the requirements and procedures of the Global/IP5 PPH pilot program. A request form (Form PTO/SB/20RO) will be available from the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/ patent-prosecution-highway-pph-fast-track. Any inquiries concerning this notice may be directed to Bryan Lin, International Patent Legal Administration at 571-272-3303, or via e-mail addressed to bryan.lin@uspto.gov. Specific questions about the Patent Prosecution Highway should be directed to the Office of Petitions at 571-272-3282, or via e-mail addressed to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov. March 30, 2015 MICHELLE K. LEE Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 189 

Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday, February 17, 2015
 Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 In view of the official closing of the Federal Government offices in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, the USPTO will consider Tuesday, February 17, 2015, to be a "Federal holiday within the District of Columbia" under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195, and 2.196. Any action or fee due on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, will be considered as timely for the purposes of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133, and 151, if the action was taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO was open, that is, Wednesday, February 18, 2015 (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196). 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(2), 2.195(a)(4), and 2.198 provide that certain correspondence deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198 will be considered filed on the date of deposit (as shown by the "date accepted" on the mailing label) with the USPS. Thus, any paper or fee properly deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198, will be considered filed on its respective date of deposit in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS (as shown by a "date accepted" of February 17, 2015, on the mailing label). 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(4) and 2.195(a)(2) provide that patent- and trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission. Thus, any patent- or trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission. Patent correspondence successfully received by the USPTO through the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and filed in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework will receive the date as indicated on the Acknowledgement Receipt. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 502.05 and the USPTO Web site at www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/New_legal_framework.jsp. Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) filings will receive the date indicated in the e-mail confirmation sent at the time of a successful filing. March 30, 2015 MICHELLE K. LEE Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 190 

Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, March 5, 2015
 Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, March 5, 2015 In view of the official closing of the Federal Government offices in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), on Thursday, March 5, 2015, the USPTO will consider Thursday, March 5, 2015, to be a "Federal holiday within the District of Columbia" under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195, and 2.196. Any action or fee due on Thursday, March 5, 2015, will be considered as timely for the purposes of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133, and 151, if the action was taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO was open, that is, Friday, March 6, 2015 (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196). 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(2), 2.195(a)(4), and 2.198 provide that certain correspondence deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198 will be considered filed on the date of deposit (as shown by the "date accepted" on the mailing label) with the USPS. Thus, any paper or fee properly deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS on Thursday, March 5, 2015, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198, will be considered filed on its respective date of deposit in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS (as shown by a "date accepted" of March 5, 2015, on the mailing label). 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(4) and 2.195(a)(2) provide that patent- and trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission. Thus, any patent- or trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO on Thursday, March 5, 2015, will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission. Patent correspondence successfully received by the USPTO through the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and filed in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework will receive the date as indicated on the Acknowledgement Receipt. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 502.05 and the USPTO Web site at www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/New_legal_framework.jsp. Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) filings will receive the date indicated in the e-mail confirmation sent at the time of a successful filing. March 30, 2015 MICHELLE K. LEE Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 191 

Errata
 Errata "All references to Patent No. D. 725,940 to JALBERT, DAVID et al of COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND for PAD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. D. 725,941 to JALBERT, DAVID et al of COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND for PAD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. D. 726,032 to DE GROOT, JACOB FRANK of ROERMOND, NETHERLANDS for MOISTURE SENSOR AND CONTROLLER appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,997,506 to WU, GUOLIAN of ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN for REFRIGERATION SYSTEM HAVING DUAL SUCTION PORT COMPRESSOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,997,609 to CHRISTOPHER LANCE of Towson, MD for FLEX-HEAD WRENCH appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,997,809 to SHUHEI MUTO of Tokyo, JP for TIRE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,080 to JOAN MCNEAL of Waycross, GA for ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION VERIFICATION SYSTEM WITH BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,094 to DAOSHEN BI of Boxborough, MA for ID DOCUMENTS HAVING A MULTI-LAYERED LAMINATE STRUCTURE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,095 to TAKESHI OSADA of Isehara, JP for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND POWER RECEIVING DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,180 to TAKUYA FUSE of Nagoya-city, JP for FUEL CARBURETOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,220 to SEAN FARRELLY of Somerset, MA for LUGGAGE WITH SHELLS HAVING VARIED DEPTHS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,272 to NIGEL SPURR of Solihull, GB for LATCH ASSEMBLY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,389 to HIROSHI ITO of Suwa-shi, JP for LIQUID EJECTING HEAD AND LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,395 to HIDETOSHI KODAMA of Matsumoto-shi, JP for CARTRIDGE AND PRINTING MATERIAL SUPPLY SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 192 

 "All references to Patent No. 8,998,406 to KIA SILVERBROOK of Balmain, AU for DISPOSABLE DIGITAL CAMERA WITH PRINTING ASSEMBLY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,627 to TOMOHIKO SHIMIZU of Makinohara-shi, JP for LEVER-FITTING-TYPE CONNECTOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,638 to JUERGEN LAPPOEHN of Gammelshausen, DE for ELECTRICAL PLUG CONNECTOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,643 to TETSU URANO of Tokyo, JP for CONNECTOR AND ILLUMINATION DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,767 to DANIEL KNOBLAUCH of Obergruppenbach, DE for TORQUE TRANSMISSION ARRANGEMENT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,998,811 to DONG-GYU HYUN of Gwangju-si, KR for 3D ULTRASOUND SYSTEM FOR INTUITIVE DISPLAYING TO CHECK ABNORMALITY OF OBJECT AND METHOD FOR OPERATING 3D ULTRASOUND SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,109 to RINGOLD, CLAY E. et al of DECATUR, GEORGIA for HIGH EFFICIENCY WET STRENGTH RESINS FROM NEW CROSS- LINKERS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,271 to SAROFIM, EMAD et al of HAGENDORN, SWITZERLAND for LID SEPARATION DEVICE AND METHODS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,303 to CHRISTOPHE DUMOUSSEAUX of Antony, FR for W/O EMULSION WITH EMULSIFYING SILICONE ELASTOMER AND VOLATILE LINEAR ALKANE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,469 to JUNPEI FUJIWARA of Isesaki-shi, JP for STYRENE RESIN COMPOSITION, AND MOLDED ARTICLE THEREOF appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,577 to SO-RA LEE of Yongin-si, KR for NEGATIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL, METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME, AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,615 to HETZLER, JOCHEN et al of AALEN, GERMANY for PROJECTION EXPOSURE TOOL FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHY AND METHOD FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHIC IMAGING appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,741 to SHAOYING XU of Beijing, CN for METHOD FOR FABRICATING SENSOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,747 to TETSUHIRO TANAKA of Isehara, JP for MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR FILM, MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 193 

 DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,853 to HIROKAZU KATO of Aichi, JP for PATTERN FORMATION METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 8,999,895 to MICHAEL VAN EIJK of Herpen, NL for STRATEGIES FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT IDENTIFICATION AND DETECTION OF POLYMORPHISMS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,255 to SAMUEL CARASSO of Milltown, NJ for FLUID MANAGEMENT DEVICE WITH FLUID TRANSPORT ELEMENT FOR USE WITHIN A BODY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,256 to SAMUEL CARASSO of Milltown, NJ for FLUID MANAGEMENT DEVICE WITH FLUID TRANSPORT ELEMENT FOR USE WITHIN A BODY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,368 to LAZIC, IVAN et al. of EINDHOVEN, NETHERLANDS for METHOD OF INVESTIGATING AND CORRECTING ABERRATIONS IN A CHARGED-PARTICLE LENS SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,422 to MASAHIRO NAKAMURA of Eindhoven, NL for ORGANIC EL DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,482 to TOSHIHIRO OHKI of Hadano, JP for COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE COMPRISING ELECTRODE ABOVE COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR LAYER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,487 to YAMADA, ATSUSHI of ISEHARA, JAPAN for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,502 to RAMASWAMY, D.V. NIRMAL et al. of BOISE, IDAHO for SELECT DEVICES INCLUDING A SEMICONDUCTIVE STACK HAVING A SEMICONDUCTIVE MATERIAL appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,607 to KAZUO TSUTSUMI of Akashi-shi, JP for POWER CONDITIONER FOR FEEDING SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,725 to SHINGO TSUCHIYA of Utsunomiya-shi, JP for BATTERY VOLTAGE DETECTOR HAVING PULL-UP RESISTOR appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,000,755 to TU, XIAOYUAN of SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA for MAGNETOMETER CALIBRATION appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,100 to KENICHI WAKIMOTO of Atsugi, JP for METHOD FOR DRIVING DISPLAY DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,150 to STEVEN NIELSEN of North Palm Beach, FL for METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING LOCATION-
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 194 

 CORRECTED SEARCHABLE ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITY LOCATE AND/OR MARKING OPERATIONS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,417 to OLEG PRONIN of Garching, DE for SPATIALLY RELAYING RADIATION COMPONENTS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,428 to JUNICHI MATSUSHITA of Shizuoka, JP for HEAD-UP DISPLAY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,600 to TONIA MORRIS of Irmo, SC for METHOD FOR TRAINING A CONTROL SIGNAL BASED ON A STROBE SIGNAL IN A MEMORY MODULE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,643 to HIDEYUKI KOINUMA of Yokohama, JP for INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM, AND CONTROL METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,744 to NARAYAN PRASAD of Plainsboro, NJ for MU-MIMO-OFDMA SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SERVICING OVERLAPPING CO- SCHEDULED USERS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,831 to JONG-HWA KIM of Suwon-si, KR for DATA TRANSMITTING APPARATUS, DATA RECEIVING APPARATUS, DATA TRANSRECEIVING SYSTEM, DATA TRANSMITTING METHOD, DATA RECEIVING METHOD AND DATA TRANSRECEIVING METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,934 to EUI-JUN PARK of Seoul, KR for TRANSPORT STREAM GENERATING DEVICE, TRANSMITTING DEVICE, RECEIVING DEVICE, AND A DIGITAL BROADCAST SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD THEREOF appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,978 to FLAVIO LERDA of London, GB for DIVIDED CALL HISTORY USER INTERFACE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,001,996 to TAKASHI UTO of Higashiomi-shi, JP for ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, LIGHT-TRANSMISSIVE COVER PLATE, AND PORTABLE DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,042 to AART VAN HALTEREN of Hobrede, NL for DUAL TRANSDUCER WITH SHARED DIAPHRAGM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,048 to KILL, HOWARD et al of EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA for AUTOMATIC RECONFIGURATION OF A HEARING ASSISTANCE DEVICE BASED ON BATTERY CHARACTERISTICS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,110 to WON-HEE CHOE of Gyeongju-si, KR for IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF PROVIDING HIGH SENSITIVE COLOR IMAGES appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,191 to AKIHIRO KAWANAMI of Utsunomiya-shi, JP for INTERCHANGEABLE LENS AND CAMERA SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 195 

 "All references to Patent No. 9,002,475 to PELLINEN, DAVID S. et al of ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN for IMPLANTABLE ELECTRODE AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,784 to SATOSHI MATSUDA of Kawasaki, JP for MERGING APPARATUS AND MERGING METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,002,971 to DONG CHEN of Croton on Hudson, NY for REMOTE PROCESSING AND MEMORY UTILIZATION appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,003,098 to HO-FAN KANG of ALISO VIEJO, CA for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING GARBAGE COLLECTION IN SOLID-STATE MEMORY appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,003,207 to GEORGE HAYEK of El Dorado Hills, CA for TECHNIQUES TO TRANSMIT COMMANDS TO A TARGET DEVICE TO REDUCE POWER CONSUMPTION appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted." "All references to Patent No. 9,003,275 to MEHAL SHAH of Seattle, WA for CONTROLLING THE RENDERING OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENT RELATED TO ELECTRONIC BOOKS appearing in the Official Gazette of April 07, 2015 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 196 

Certificates of Correction
 Certificates of Correction for April 14, 2015 5,773,102 8,603,819 8,834,890 8,892,761 5,903,226 8,604,236 8,834,954 8,893,594 5,918,035 8,607,148 8,835,138 8,894,112 6,064,667 8,609,707 8,835,339 8,894,166 6,198,739 8,611,369 8,835,392 8,894,522 6,551,820 8,613,383 8,835,659 8,895,207 6,589,779 8,614,214 8,835,660 8,895,319 6,620,814 8,614,215 8,835,672 8,895,568 6,671,791 8,615,263 8,836,463 8,895,571 6,732,391 8,615,462 8,838,130 8,895,694 6,742,376 8,617,595 8,838,671 8,895,734 6,828,666 8,623,150 8,839,654 8,895,745 6,957,308 8,626,620 8,840,151 8,896,593 7,123,816 8,629,321 8,841,346 8,896,604 7,141,917 8,635,537 8,841,364 8,897,347 7,246,618 8,640,165 8,841,642 8,897,722 7,713,837 8,642,264 8,841,673 8,898,034 7,731,927 8,644,923 8,844,007 8,898,346 7,732,553 8,648,006 8,845,001 8,898,584 7,754,599 8,651,789 8,845,485 8,901,286 7,789,910 8,652,476 8,845,966 8,901,424 7,804,737 8,659,188 8,847,181 8,901,554 7,806,119 8,663,358 8,847,979 8,901,970 7,812,397 8,668,450 8,849,388 8,902,030 7,934,347 8,668,790 8,849,585 8,902,070 7,943,719 8,669,048 8,850,052 8,902,601 7,973,674 8,675,485 8,851,113 8,902,773 7,995,692 8,676,329 8,851,688 8,902,878 8,006,429 8,678,210 8,853,101 8,904,165 8,015,357 8,681,648 8,853,249 8,904,218 8,060,723 8,686,034 8,853,696 8,904,295 8,065,180 8,687,715 8,854,583 8,904,299 8,080,250 8,690,027 8,854,999 8,904,623 8,088,270 8,691,538 8,855,553 8,904,943 8,135,497 8,691,798 8,855,622 8,905,147 8,159,777 8,692,731 8,856,176 8,905,432 8,199,683 8,694,836 8,856,324 8,906,980 8,214,710 8,698,149 8,857,083 8,907,277 8,227,403 8,702,200 8,857,999 8,907,295 8,229,458 8,705,032 8,858,640 8,907,449 8,242,305 8,712,931 8,859,324 8,907,984 8,246,863 8,715,229 8,859,435 8,908,189 8,252,537 8,718,348 8,859,564 8,908,360 8,264,310 8,726,739 8,859,762 8,908,401 8,268,854 8,728,212 8,859,901 8,908,450 8,280,835 8,728,295 8,860,251 8,908,863 8,284,400 8,731,305 8,860,595 8,909,297 8,287,030 8,733,188 8,861,236 8,909,440 8,288,148 8,734,141 8,861,256 8,909,657 8,308,778 8,736,537 8,862,220 8,910,067 8,309,267 8,743,371 8,862,427 8,910,085 8,323,813 8,744,597 8,862,579 8,911,197 8,324,445 8,744,614 8,862,770 8,911,727 8,325,245 8,745,849 8,863,204 8,911,938 8,331,288 8,748,161 8,863,399 8,912,437 8,338,151 8,759,046 8,863,445 8,912,687 8,356,303 8,759,721 8,863,820 8,912,943 8,386,508 8,764,991 8,863,996 8,913,219 8,392,684 8,765,649 8,864,747 8,913,887 8,398,020 8,765,801 8,865,191 8,916,388 8,399,227 8,766,323 8,866,023 8,916,409 8,402,138 8,766,725 8,866,410 8,916,843
 May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE1414 OG 197 

 8,404,676 8,767,066 8,866,787 8,916,979 8,407,773 8,767,133 8,866,845 8,917,219 8,410,477 8,767,353 8,868,151 8,917,484 8,424,222 8,773,092 8,868,476 8,917,530 8,424,703 8,773,501 8,868,560 8,917,644 8,427,319 8,775,956 8,868,754 8,917,706 8,434,161 8,776,716 8,869,318 8,918,103 8,434,989 8,777,568 8,869,585 8,918,475 8,438,123 8,778,022 8,869,740 8,919,234 8,442,667 8,778,028 8,869,831 8,919,273 8,444,210 8,778,872 8,869,955 8,919,305 8,466,295 8,779,348 8,870,230 8,919,456 8,472,313 8,780,020 8,871,487 8,919,529 8,481,739 8,780,359 8,871,637 8,919,735 8,486,505 8,784,393 8,872,027 8,919,806 8,491,199 8,784,518 8,872,718 8,920,251 8,501,190 8,785,935 8,872,721 8,920,323 8,506,477 8,786,107 8,873,236 8,920,440 8,509,525 8,786,577 8,873,349 8,920,647 8,514,808 8,789,932 8,873,893 8,921,009 8,517,905 8,790,102 8,874,425 8,921,054 8,518,385 8,790,906 8,874,491 8,921,696 8,518,564 8,791,057 8,875,175 8,921,763 8,518,665 8,791,207 8,876,575 8,922,373 8,520,957 8,791,497 8,877,192 8,922,485 8,523,507 8,794,762 8,877,569 8,922,490 8,527,611 8,795,458 8,877,746 8,922,557 8,530,054 8,795,724 8,877,933 8,922,590 8,535,217 8,797,104 8,878,004 8,922,857 8,536,122 8,797,307 8,878,123 8,922,980 8,541,368 8,797,970 8,878,262 8,923,577 8,551,139 8,798,970 8,878,429 8,923,984 8,554,350 8,799,186 8,878,754 8,924,182 8,556,550 8,802,005 8,879,571 8,924,478 8,561,955 8,802,310 8,879,891 8,925,378 8,562,271 8,802,776 8,880,163 8,925,385 8,563,867 8,803,195 8,880,166 8,925,454 8,565,186 8,804,951 8,880,471 8,925,472 8,565,690 8,805,991 8,880,493 8,925,721 8,566,248 8,807,072 8,881,444 8,926,386 8,568,580 8,808,737 8,881,864 8,926,994 8,569,210 8,809,783 8,881,963 8,927,197 8,569,487 8,812,464 8,882,039 8,927,646 8,569,497 8,812,715 8,882,170 8,927,706 8,569,498 8,812,967 8,882,320 8,927,738 8,571,650 8,813,151 8,882,328 8,927,749 8,572,330 8,813,185 8,882,508 8,927,924 8,572,480 8,814,125 8,882,726 8,927,959 8,572,649 8,814,498 8,882,982 8,928,470 8,577,720 8,814,518 8,883,133 8,928,471 8,578,349 8,814,569 8,883,852 8,929,739 8,579,866 8,814,856 8,884,101 8,929,769 8,580,295 8,815,024 8,884,212 8,930,282 8,581,679 8,815,859 8,884,706 8,933,493 8,584,005 8,816,004 8,884,763 8,934,031 8,584,013 8,818,873 8,884,817 8,935,547 8,584,434 8,820,678 8,884,876 8,935,690 8,586,314 8,821,652 8,885,288 8,935,888 8,591,599 8,821,745 8,885,371 8,936,910 8,591,945 8,821,788 8,885,661 8,936,982 8,592,196 8,822,990 8,885,685 8,937,214 8,592,377 8,825,281 8,886,226 8,938,403 8,592,581 8,825,717 8,888,151 8,938,723 8,594,012 8,825,853 8,888,515 8,953,909 8,594,814 8,828,038 8,888,582 D. 695,278 8,596,205 8,828,447 8,889,130 D. 697,664 8,597,616 8,828,513 8,889,148 D. 707,797 8,597,946 8,828,631 8,889,159 D. 710,371 8,597,949 8,828,944 8,889,697 D. 712,244 8,598,208 8,828,962 8,889,833 D. 716,741 8,599,064 8,831,255 8,890,404 D. 720,226 8,599,315 8,831,908 8,890,899 D. 721,122 8,601,050 8,832,980 8,891,161 RE. 45,039 8,602,640 8,833,048 8,891,730 RE. 45,048 8,602,753 8,834,852 8,892,005
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 198 

AIA Trial Proceedings Filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

AIA Trial Proceedings Filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Covered Business Methods
Patent No.Trial NumberRequested DatePetitionerPatent Owner
8,146,077CBM2015-000953/3/2015Expedia, Inc.,
StubHub, Inc.,
Fandango, LLC,
Hotels.com, LP,
Hotel Tonight, Inc.,
Hotwire, Inc.,
Kayak Software Corporation,
OpenTable, Inc.,
Orbitz, LLC,
Papa John's USA, Inc.,
Ticketmaster, LLC,
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.,
Travelocity.com LP,
Wanderspot LLC,
Agilysys, Inc.,
Domino's Pizza, Inc.,
Domino's Pizza, LLC,
Hilton Resorts Corporation,
Hilton Worldwide, Inc.,
Hilton International Company,
Mobo Systems, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of America, Inc.,
Pizza Hut, Inc. &
Usablenet, Inc.		Ameranth, Inc.
6,384,850CBM2015-000963/3/2015Expedia, Inc.,
StubHub, Inc.,
Fandango, LLC,
Hotels.com, LP,
Hotel Tonight, Inc.,
Hotwire, Inc.,
Kayak Software Corporation,
OpenTable, Inc.,
Orbitz, LLC,
Papa John's USA, Inc.,
Ticketmaster, LLC,
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.,
Travelocity.com LP,
Wanderspot LLC,
Agilysys, Inc.,
Domino's Pizza, Inc.,
Domino's Pizza, LLC,
Hilton Resorts Corporation,
Hilton Worldwide, Inc.,
Hilton International Company,
Mobo Systems, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of America, Inc.,
Pizza Hut, Inc. &
Usablenet, Inc.		Ameranth, Inc.
5,940,510CBM2015-000983/6/2015American Express Company,
American Express Travel Related Service Company, Inc.,
Compass Bank,
Discover Financial Services,
Discover Bank,
Discover Products, Inc.,
Navy Credit Federal Credit Union &
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company		Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
6,871,325CBM2015-000993/6/2015Starbucks CorporationAmeranth, Inc.
6,105,013CBM2015-001013/23/2015Compass Bank,
American Express Company,
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.,
Discover Financial Services,
Discover Bank,
Discover Projects Inc.,
Navy Credit Federal Credit Union &
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company		Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
6,237,095CBM2015-001023/30/2015Compass Bank,
American Express Company,
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.,
Discover Financial Services,
Discover Bank,
Discover Projects Inc.,
Navy Credit Federal Credit Union &
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company		Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
5,569,082CBM2015-001053/31/2015International Internet Technologies, LLC,
Red Rock Investments, LLC,
Chase Burns,
The Chase Burns Trust,
Bobby Mosley,
J. Michael Caldwell,
Frontier Florida, LLC,
Enterprise Performance Solutions, LLC,
Frontier Systems, LLC,
Epic Tech, LLC,
Allied Veterans of the World, Inc. &
Affiliates, ALlie Veterans Management Group, Inc., Johnny Bass & John M. Hessong		Sweepstakes Patent Company, LLC
5,709,603CBM2015-001064/2/2015International Internet Technologies, LLC,
Red Rock Investments, LLC,
Chase Burns,
The Chase Burns Trust,
Bobby Mosley,
J. Michael Caldwell,
Frontier Florida, LLC,
Enterprise Performance Solutions, LLC,
Frontier Systems, LLC,
Epic Tech, LLC,
Allied Veterans of the World, Inc. &
Affiliates, ALlie Veterans Management Group, Inc., Johnny Bass & John M. Hessong		Sweepstakes Patent Company, LLC
7,062,683CBM2015-001073/31/2015ServiceNow, Inc.BMC Software, Inc.
7,945,860CBM2015-001084/2/2015ServiceNow, Inc.Hewlett-Packard Company


Inter Partes Review
Patent No.Trial NumberRequested DatePetitionerPatent Owner
6,237,127IPR2015-007602/18/2015ATopTech, Inc.Synopsys, Inc.
6,038,295IPR2015-007782/19/2015Facebook, Inc. &
Instagram LLC		TLI Communications, LLC
RE44550IPR2015-007882/20/2015Google Inc.Art+Com Innovationpool GmbH
8,850,009IPR2015-008133/2/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
5,902,347IPR2015-008493/6/2015Apple Inc.,
Google Inc.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. &
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd		American Navigation Systems, Inc.
5,902,347IPR2015-008513/6/2015Apple Inc.,
Google Inc.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. &
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd		American Navigation Systems, Inc.
6,363,377IPR2015-008563/6/2015EMC CorporationSelene Communication Technologies, LLC
8,701,554IPR2015-008443/16/2015Mod-U-Serve, Inc.Kitchen Equipment Fabricating Company &
Duke Manufacturing Co.
7,202,843IPR2015-008623/16/2015Sony Corporation,
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd &
Samsung Display Co., Ltd		Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
7,202,843IPR2015-008633/16/2015Sony Corporation,
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd &
Samsung Display Co., Ltd		Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
8,374,887IPR2015-008833/16/2015Baxter International Inc.Becton, Dickinson and Company
8,291,904IPR2015-008843/16/2015Praxair Distribution, Inc. &
Praxair, Inc.		INO Therapeutics, LLC
d/b/a Ikaria, Inc.
7,420,550IPR2015-008873/16/2015Sony Corporation,
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd &
Samsung Display Co., Ltd		INO Therapeutics, LLC
d/b/a Ikaria, Inc.
8,776,794IPR2015-008883/16/2015Praxair Distribution, Inc. &
Praxair, Inc.		INO Therapeutics, LLC &
Ikaria, Inc.
8,573,209IPR2015-008893/16/2015Praxair Distribution, Inc. &
Praxair, Inc.		INO Therapeutics, LLC &
Ikaria, Inc.
6,434,486IPR2015-008903/16/2015Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Daimler North America Corporation &
Daimler AG		Signal IP, Inc.
8,573,210IPR2015-008913/16/2015Praxair Distribution, Inc. &
Praxair, Inc.		INO Therapeutics, LLC &
Ikaria, Inc.
8,776,795IPR2015-008933/16/2015Praxair Distribution, Inc. &
Praxair, Inc.		INO Therapeutics, LLC &
Ikaria, Inc.
8,458,341IPR2015-008663/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
8,458,341IPR2015-008673/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
8,516,131IPR2015-008683/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
8,516,131IPR2015-008693/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
8,560,705IPR2015-008703/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
8,560,705IPR2015-008713/17/2015Apple Inc.VirnetX, Inc.
RE44815IPR2015-008823/17/2015Stellar Energy Americas, Inc.,
Stellar Energy International Limited,
Stellar Overseas Ventures, Inc.,
Santiago Energy Cooling Limited &
Stellar Overseas Inc.,
The Stellar Companies & Santiago Capital Limited		TAS Energy, Inc.
7,202,843IPR2015-008853/17/2015LG Display Co., Ltd &
LG Display America, Inc.		Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
RE44815IPR2015-008863/17/2015Stellar Energy Americas, Inc.,
Stellar Energy International Limited,
Stellar Overseas Ventures, Inc.,
Santiago Energy Cooling Limited &
Stellar Overseas Inc.,
The Stellar Companies & Santiago Capital Limited		TAS Energy, Inc.
5,575,333IPR2015-008923/17/2015Blackhawk Specialty Tools, LLCWeatherford/Lamb Inc. &
Weatherford International . LLC
RE42678IPR2015-008943/17/2015Ciena Corporation,
Coriant Operations, Inc.,
Coriant (USA) Inc.,
Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. &
Fujitsu Limited		Capella Photonics, Inc.
6,508,563IPR2015-008953/19/2015Toyota Motor Corporation,
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. &
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc.		Innovative Display Technologies LLC
6,886,956IPR2015-008963/19/2015Toyota Motor Corporation,
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. &
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc.		Innovative Display Technologies LLC
7,404,660IPR2015-008973/19/2015Toyota Motor Corporation,
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. &
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc.		Acacia Research Group LLC &
Acacia Research Corporation
8,669,290IPR2015-009023/19/2015InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.,
InnoPharma Licensing, LLC,
InnoPharma Inc.,
InnoPharma, LLC,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. &
Mylan Inc.		Senju Pharmaceutical Co., LTD,
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. &
Lomb Pharma Holdings Corporation
8,129,431IPR2015-009033/19/2015InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.,
InnoPharma Licensing, LLC,
InnoPharma Inc.,
InnoPharma, LLC,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. &
Mylan Inc.		Senju Pharmaceutical Co., LTD,
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. &
Lomb Pharma Holdings Corporation
7,613,926IPR2015-009073/19/2015Sophos Inc. &
Sophos Limited		Finjan, Inc.
6,202,395IPR2015-008983/20/2015Deere & CompanyRichard Gramm &
Headsight, Inc.
6,202,395IPR2015-008993/20/2015Deere & CompanyRichard Gramm &
Headsight, Inc.
7,035,076IPR2015-009082/20/2015AVX CorporationGreatbatch LTD &
Greatbatch, Inc.
8,117,344IPR2015-009092/20/2015VMWare, Inc. &
AirWatch LLC		Good Technology Corporation
7,966,654IPR2015-009103/20/2015Sophos Inc. &
Sophos Limited		Fortinet, Inc.
8,205,251IPR2015-009113/20/2015Sophos Inc. &
Sophos Limited		Fortinet, Inc.
8,656,479IPR2015-009123/20/2015Sophos Inc. &
Sophos Limited		Fortinet, Inc.
7,420,550IPR2015-009133/20/2015Sharp Corporation,
Sharp Electronics Corporation &
Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.		Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
6,373,188IPR2015-009143/23/2015Cree, Inc.Honeywell International Inc.
6,266,563IPR2015-009183/23/2015Boston Scientific Corporation &
Cardiac Pacemakers Inc.		UAB Research Foundation &
The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama
7,079,649IPR2015-009213/23/2015Netflix, Inc.Copy Protection LLC
7,590,550IPR2015-009243/24/2015Teladoc, Inc.American Well Corporation
8,686,840IPR2015-009233/24/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
6,508,563IPR2015-009333/24/2015BMW of North America, LLC,
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC &
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft		Innovative Display Technologies LLC
6,886,956IPR2015-009343/24/2015BMW of North America, LLC,
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC &
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft		Innovative Display Technologies LLC
7,454,201IPR2015-009353/25/2015Apple Inc.Enterprise Systems Technologies S.A.R.L.
6,775,601IPR2015-009413/25/2015Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Daimler North America Corporation &
Daimler AG		Signal IP, Inc.
6,230,521IPR2015-009433/25/2015Ardagh Glass Inc.Culchrome, LLC
5,718,737IPR2015-009443/25/2015Ardagh Glass Inc.Culchrome, LLC
5,835,096IPR2015-009313/26/2015Apple Inc.Zii Labs Inc., Ltd.
6,066,325IPR2015-009453/26/2015Ethicon, Inc.and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
D526197IPR2015-009473/26/2015Vitro Packaging, LLCSaverglass Inc.
6,063,061IPR2015-009483/26/2015Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
8,603,511IPR2015-009523/26/2015Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
8,537,378IPR2015-009533/26/2015Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
8,303,981IPR2015-009543/26/2015Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
8,512,729IPR2015-009553/26/2015Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson		Baxter International, Inc. &
Baxter Healthcare S.A.
8,905,991IPR2015-009563/26/2015First Quality Baby Products, LLCKimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc.
8,144,156IPR2015-009303/27/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., LTD.
7,187,383IPR2015-009323/27/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., LTD.
6,513,088IPR2015-009373/27/2015LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.		Mondis Technology LTD.
6,549,970IPR2015-009383/27/2015LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.		Mondis Technology LTD.
6,639,588IPR2015-009393/27/2015LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.		Mondis Technology LTD.
7,089,342IPR2015-009403/27/2015LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.		Mondis Technology LTD.
7,475,180IPR2015-009423/27/2015LG Electronics, Inc. &
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.		Mondis Technology LTD.
8,629,768IPR2015-009493/27/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
8,636,393IPR2015-009503/27/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
8,637,801IPR2015-009513/27/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
8,585,136IPR2015-009583/27/2015J Squared, Inc.
d/b/a University Loft Company		Sauder Manufacturing Company
8,116,929IPR2015-009603/27/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
8,116,929IPR2015-009613/27/2015TRW Automotive U.S. LLCMagna Electronics Inc.
6,683,615IPR2015-009253/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
6,683,615IPR2015-009263/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
7,050,061IPR2015-009273/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
7,710,425IPR2015-009283/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
7,710,425IPR2015-009293/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
7,883,212IPR2015-009593/28/2015Cirque du Soleil My Call,
Cirque Jackson I.P., LLC,
Cirque du Soliel (US), Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Nevada, Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Holding, USA,
Groupe Cirque du Soleil Inc.,
Creations Meandres Inc.,
The Estate of Michael J. Jackson, PPB, LLC,
Triumph International, Inc.,
MJ Publishing Trust d/b/a Mijac Music &
Mijac Music LLC		Hologram USA, Inc.
5,865,519IPR2015-009623/28/2015Cirque du Soleil My Call,
Cirque Jackson I.P., LLC,
Cirque du Soliel (US), Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Nevada, Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Inc.,
Cirque du Soleil Holding, USA,
Groupe Cirque du Soleil Inc.,
Creations Meandres Inc.,
The Estate of Michael J. Jackson, PPB, LLC,
Triumph International, Inc.,
MJ Publishing Trust d/b/a Mijac Music &
Mijac Music LLC		Hologram USA, Inc.
6,977,649IPR2015-009633/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
6,111,584IPR2015-009643/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
6,111,584IPR2015-009653/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
5,831,637IPR2015-009663/28/2015Apple Inc.Zililabs Inc., Ltd.
5,714,927IPR2015-009683/30/2015Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. &
Volkswagen AG		Signal IP, Inc.
5,884,033IPR2015-009693/30/2015Apple Inc.OpenTV, Inc.
6,985,586IPR2015-009713/30/2015Apple Inc.Nagravision S.A.
8,911,808IPR2015-009773/31/2015Arisdyne Systems, Inc.Cavitation Technologies, Inc.
8,695,841IPR2015-009793/31/2015Jackel International Limited,
Mayborn USA, Inc. &
Mayborn Group Ltd.		Admar International, Inc.
5,566,287IPR2015-009803/31/2015Apple Inc.OpenTV, Inc.
7,224,668IPR2015-009744/1/2015Arista Networks, Inc.Cisco Systems, Inc.
8,051,211IPR2015-009754/1/2015Arista Networks, Inc.Cisco Systems, Inc.
7,340,597IPR2015-009784/1/2015Arista Networks, Inc.Cisco Systems, Inc.
6,612,713IPR2015-009874/1/2015Ace Evert, Inc.Lakesouth Holdings, LLC
6,773,720IPR2015-009884/1/2015Coalition for Affordable Drugs III LLC,
Hayman Credes Master Fund, L.P.,
Hayman Orange Fund
SPC - Portfolio A, Hayman Capital Master Fund,L.P.,
Hayman Capital Management, L.P.,
Hayman Offshore Management, Inc.,
Hayman Investments, LLC,
nXn Partners, LLC,
IP Navigation Group, LLC,
J.Kyle Bass &
Erich Spangenberg		Shire Inc.
6,884,897IPR2015-009984/3/2015Ameriforge Group, Inc.Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.
7,397,763IPR2015-009994/3/2015Cisco Systems, Inc.Spherix Inc.
7,035,914IPR2015-010004/3/2015Amazon.com, Inc.Simpleair, Inc.
8,607,323IPR2015-010014/3/2015Cisco Systems, Inc.Spherix Inc.


Post-Grant Review
Patent No.Trial NumberRequested DatePetitionerPatent Owner
8,756,166PGR2015-000093/17/2015Netsirv, LLCBoxbee, Inc.
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint This Notice 1414 OG 199 

Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
March 30, 2015 - April 10, 2015
 
Date IssuedType of Case(1)Proceeding or Appn. NumberParty or PartiesTTAB Panel (2)Issue(s)TTAB DecisionOpposer’s or Petitioner’s mark and goods or servicesApplicant’s or Respondent’s mark and goods or servicesMark and goods or services cited by Examining Attorney Issued as Precedent of TTAB
3/30EX85862680WeMade Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Link Tomorrow Co. Ltd.Bucher
Wellington
Hightower*		2(d) as to Class 9 and 
"game services provided on-line from a computer network,
namely, providing on-line computer games" in Class 41		Refusal Affirmed; Application will proceed to registration as to Class 42 and unaffected services in Class 41 WIND RUNNER (and design) [recorded and downloadable computer game programs and video game cartridges and cassettes (Class 9)] [game services provided on-line from a computer network, namely, providing on-line computer games; providing of game centers, namely, amusement arcades (Class 41)] [various computer services, including creating, maintaining and hosting web sites of others and design and updating of computer game software (Class 42)]WINDWALKER [series of motion pictures featuring mystery, adventure, fantasy and the occult] [various entertainment services featuring mystery, adventure, fantasy and the occult, online and across multiple forms of transmission media]No
3/30EX85566177Summit Entertainment, LLCKuhlke*
Mermelstein
Goodman		2(d)Refusal Affirmed SUMMIT BASE CAMP FILM MUSIC ("FILM MUSIC" disclaimed) [music publishing services]BASECAMP [various entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances and recording, production and post-production services in the fields of music, video and films; music publishing services]No
3/30OPP
(SJ)		91206077Board of Directors of the American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation 
v.
Sheila Lyons		Seeherman
Quinn
Shaw
[Opinion "By the Board"
(Linnehan)] 
 		2(d); 2(e)(1); 2(f)
 		Opposition Sustained on lack of acquired distinctiveness (analysis under collateral estoppel)Common law rights in THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND
REHABILITATION [advances the art and science of veterinary medicine by promoting expertise in the structural, physiological, medical, and surgical needs of athletic animals and the restoration of normal form and function
after injury or illness]		THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION [educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, clinical seminars, conferences, workshops and internships and externships in the fields of veterinary sports medicine and veterinary rehabilitation and distribution of training materials in connection therewith] No
3/30OPP
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CANC
(SJ)		91219162
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
92058318		Great Adirondack Steak & Seafood
Cafe, Inc.
v.
Adirondack Pub & Brewery, Inc.
 
Adirondack Pub & Brewery, Inc.
v.
Great Adirondack Steak & Seafood Cafe, Inc.		Quinn
Lykos
Masiello
[Opinion "By the Board"
(English)]		OPP: 2(d) and priority;
2(e)(1) 
 
 
 
 
CANC:
fraud;
abandonment; whether specimen sufficient		Opposer’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing Fraud Counterclaim 
Granted in the absence of amended petition;
Opposer denied Summary Judgment on Counterclaim Petition to Cancel allegation of non-use		Mark of Opposer/Respondent: GREAT ADIRONDACK BREWING COMPANY ("BREWING COMPANY" disclaimed) [ales and beer]Mark of Applicant/Petitioner: ADIRONDACK BREWERY ("BREWERY" disclaimed) [beer] No
3/31EX85951305Grill 505 LLCQuinn
Taylor*
Lykos		2(d)Refusal Affirmed as to Class 32; 
Refusal Reversed as to Class 43		 BRUTOPIA BREWERY ("BREWERY" disclaimed) [beer (Class 32)] [pubs (Class 43)]BREWTOPIA [providing beer events and beer festivals; and providing online information regarding the beer events and beer festivals]No
3/31EX85946217Grand & Piano Parts Distribution B.V.Quinn
Taylor*
Shaw		2(e)(4);
identification requirement as to "speakers" in Class 9		Refusal Reversed as to 2(e)(4); Refusal Affirmed as to "speakers" in Class 9 BOLAN [apparatus for recording, transmitting, editing and reproduction of sound featuring piano sounds, including speakers, and silent systems for pianos (Class 9)] [musical instruments, including various types of pianos, piano structural parts, and musical instrument tuning apparatus] [piano benches] [business management featuring procurement of various types of pianos, piano structural parts, and piano tuners] [repair and maintenance of grand pianos; installing of silent systems for pianos] No
3/31CANC92053501Christian M. Ziebarth
v.
Del Taco, LLC		Mermelstein
Lykos*
Adlin		abandonmentPetition to Cancel GrantedNAUGLES [cafeteria and restaurant services]NAUGLES [restaurant services] No
3/31CANC92056767Tween Brands Investment, LLC
v.
I am a Dreamer LLC DBA Levi Emmanuel		Taylor*
Bergsman
Ritchie		2(d) and priorityPetition to Cancel Granted Multiple registrations incorporating or comprising the word "JUSTICE" [wide variety of apparel, bags, art kits and writing instruments, jewelry, dolls, and retail store services for a wide variety of items, including apparel, personal care products, toys, and writing instruments]
Common law rights for JUSTICE [personal care products, namely cosmetics, perfumes and perfume-related products]		JUSTICE [various colognes, perfumes, and cosmetics] No
3/31EX85483943John Michael BrackCataldo*
Ritchie
Hightower		1(b), Rules 2.193, 2.20, & 2.33
(signature & verification requirements); 2(d)		Refusal Affirmed on signature and verification requirements ground  SIMPLY ORANGECELLO ("ORANGECELLO" disclaimed) [alcoholic beverage, namely, orange flavored liqueur]CARAVELLA ORANGECELLO [alcoholic beverage, namely, orange flavored liqueur]Yes
4-1OPP91196078Pandora Jewelry, LLC
v.
Pandora’s Makeup Box Inc.		Richey
Bucher*
Lykos		2(d) and priorityOpposition SustainedCommon law rights in PANDORA and PANDORA JEWELRY [a variety of jewelry products, men’s and women’s watches and sunglasses, and in conjunction with promotional programs, mirrored compacts, umbrellas, totes, jewelry boxes, key rings, luggage tags, pens, t-shirts and aprons, and in connection with retail store services] Multiple registrations incorporating or comprising the word "PANDORA" (and design) [jewelry] [pamphlets, brochures, catalogs in the field of jewelry; paperboards; non-textile paper labels; paper and plastic packaging bags; advertisement poster boards of paper and cardboard]PANDORA’S [cosmetics, namely, lipsticks, eye pencils, lip pencils, eye shadow, mascara, lip gloss, blush, pressed and loose powder, cosmetic foundations, cover sticks and nail polish] [retail store services, online retail store services, and mail order catalog services featuring cosmetics, cosmetic implements and cosmetic boxes]
 No
4/1CANC
(SJ)		92057217Bruce Kirby, Inc.
v.
Velum Limited		Kuhlke
Bergsman
Adlin [Opinion "By the Board" (Dunn)]		nonuse; abandonment; fraud
 
Defense as to all claims: contractual estoppel 		Petition to Cancel Granted in part 
(partial summary judgment granted for Petitioner on standing)
 		 LASER [organizing sporting events, namely, sailing competitions, and regattas; sailing schools]  
4/2EX86048207Pup Scouts, LLCSeeherman
Ritchie*
Adlin		2(d)Refusal Affirmed on basis of Registration No. 3501260 PUP SCOUTS [indicating membership in an organization for pets and their human counterparts]DOG SCOUTS OF AMERICA (with and without design) ("DOG" and "AMERICA" disclaimed) 
Registration Nos. 3501260 and 3501266 [online retail store services featuring clothing and equipment and accessories for the care and training of dogs; association services educating people about the care and training of their dogs] 
Registration Nos. 3501263 and 3501265 [providing live and online educational services, including various seminars on responsible pet parenting and ownership and the importance of the human/canine bond]		No
4/2EX85851513Dish Network, LLCRichey
Kuhlke*
Wolfson		2(e)(1)Refusal Affirmed SMARTBOX [set-top boxes] No
4/3CU94002610PM Pediatrics Management Group LLCQuinn
Kuhlke*
Shaw		2(d)Registration Approved for C.U. Applicant; Existing Registration RestrictedC.U. Applicant’s Mark: PM PEDIATRICS (and design) ("PEDIATRICS" disclaimed) [medical services]Defending Registrant’s Mark: PM PEDIATRICS (and design) ("PEDIATRICS" disclaimed) [pediatric medical care] No
4-6EX85890006Inter-American Investment CorporationKuhlke
Taylor*
Masiello		2(d)Refusal Affirmed SII (and design) [Financing and loan services, namely, arranging of loans, financial guarantees, equity capital investments, and providing lines of credit to local financial intermediaries for the economic development of Latin American and Caribbean countries; local and regional investment services, namely, providing loans to small and medium size companies in Latin American and Caribbean countries]SII INVESTMENTS, INC. (with and without design; "INVESTMENTS, INC." disclaimed in both) (both for) [financial services, namely, securities brokerage and investment advisory services]No
 (1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (R)=Request for Reconsideration; (REM)=Decision on Remand; (2)*=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
Top of Notices Top of Notices May 5, 2015US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPrint Appendix 1414 OG 

Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
 MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine. If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required for the correspondence. See the listing under "Mail to be Directed to the Director of the Patent And Trademark Office" for additional mail stops for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in the address. Most correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the USPTO's Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) internet page http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp for additional information. Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows: Mail Stop _____ Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should be omitted from the address. NEW: Effective September 16, 2012, the Mail Stop description for Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam is being revised and a new Mail Stop for supplemental examination requests is being added as Mail Stop Supplemental Examination. Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account Replenishments (see 37 CFR 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR 5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address patent-related correspondence to be delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL, Laser, Action, Purolator, etc.) as follows: United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____ Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Mail Stop Designations Explanation Mail Stop 12 Contributions to the Examiner Education Program. Mail Stop 313(c) Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a patent application from issue after payment of the issue fee and any papers associated with the petition, including papers necessary for a continuing application or a request for continued examination (RCE). Mail Stop AF Amendments and other responses after final rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any request for pre-appeal brief conference)), other than an appeal brief. Mail Stop Amendment Information disclosure statements, drawings, and replies to Office actions in patent applications with or without an amendment to the application or a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for replies after final rejection.) Mail Stop Appeal For appeal briefs or other briefs under Brief-Patents part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192). Mail Stop Public comments regarding patent-related Comments-Patent regulations and procedures. Mail Stop Conversion Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a nonprovisional application to a provisional application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3) to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application. Mail Stop EBC Mail for the Electronic Business Center including: Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer Number, and Requests for Customer Number Data Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A, respectively) and Customer Number Upload Spreadsheets and Cover Letters. Mail Stop Expedited Only to be used for the initial filing of Design design applications accompanied by a request for expedited examination under 37 CFR 1.155. Mail Stop Express Requests for abandonment of a patent Abandonment application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138, including any petitions under 37 CFR 1.138(c) to expressly abandon an application to avoid publication of the application. Mail Stop Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term Hatch-Waxman PTE extension based on regulatory review of a product subject to pre-market review by a regulating agency. This mail stop is also to be used for additional correspondence regarding the application for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial requests be hand-carried to: Office of Patent Legal Administration Room MDW 7D55 600 Dulany Street (Madison Building) Alexandria, VA 22314 Mail Stop ILS Correspondence relating to international patent classification, exchanges and standards. Mail Stop Issue Fee All communications following the receipt of a PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee, unless advised to the contrary. Assignments are the exception. Assignments (with cover sheets) should be faxed to 571-273-0140, electronically submitted (http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as shown below. Mail Stop L&R All documents pertaining to applications subject to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or national-security classified and required to be processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b) for which expedited handling is requested, and petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR 5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and Review: Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director Room 4B41 501 Dulany Street (Knox Building) Alexandria, VA 22314 Mail Stop Missing Requests for a corrected filing receipt and Parts replies to OPAP notices such as the Notice of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing Parts of Application, and associated papers and fees. Mail Stop MPEP Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Mail Stop Patent Ext. Applications for patent term extension or adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any communications relating thereto. This mail stop is limited to petitions for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For applications for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE. For applications for patent term extension or adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed together with the payment of the issue fee, use Mail Stop Issue Fee. Mail Stop Patent Submission of comments regarding search templates. Search Template Comments Mail Stop PCT Mail related to international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the international phase and in the national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a Notification of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form PCT/DO/EO/903). Mail Stop Petition Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions, including petitions to revive and petitions to accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance fees. Mail Stop PGPUB Correspondence regarding publication of patent applications not otherwise provided, including: requests for early publication made after filing, rescission of a non-publication request, corrected patent application publication, and refund of publication fee. Mail Stop Post In patented files: requests for changes of Issue correspondence address, powers of attorney, revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal as attorney or agent and submissions under 37 CFR 1.501. Designation of, or changes to, a fee address should be addressed to Mail Stop M Correspondence. Requests for Certificate of Correction need no special mail stop, but should be mailed to the attention of Certificate of Correction Branch. Mail Stop RCE Requests for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114. Mail Stop Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction Reconstruction of lost patent files. Mail Stop Ex Parte Original requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor (see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)). Effective September 16, 2012, this mail stop is also to be used for any papers to be filed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding. Mail Stop Inter Original requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Partes Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor (see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)). Mail Stop Reissue All new and continuing reissue application filings. Mail Stop Sequence Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for applications with sequence listings, when the CRF is not being filed with the patent application. Mail Stop Supplemental (Effective September 16, 2012). Requests for Examination Supplemental Examination, including original request papers and any other correspondence, other than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor (see 37 CFR Secs. 1.1(a)(3) AND 1.302(c)). This mail stop is limited to original request papers and any other papers that are to be filed in a supplemental examination proceeding. For any papers to be filed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, use "Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam". Information for addressing patent-related correspondence may also be found on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp. MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS Please address trademark-related correspondence to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as follows: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit, must be mailed to: Madrid Processing Unit 600 Dulany Street MDE-7B87 Alexandria, VA 22314-5796 Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to: Letter of Protest ATTN: Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314-5796 Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to: Director, USPTO ATTN: FQA 600 Dulany Street, MDE-10A71 Alexandria, VA 22314-5793 Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to: Native American Tribal Insignia ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks 600 Dulany Street MDE-10A71 Alexandria, VA 22314-5793 Do NOT send any of the following via USPS certified mail or with a "signature required" option: submissions to the Madrid Processing Unit, Letters of Protest, applications for recordal of insignia under the Fastener Quality Act, notifications of Native American Tribal Insignia. Trademark-related mail to be delivered by hand or other private courier or delivery service (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) to the Trademark Operation, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the Office's Madrid Processing Unit, must be delivered to: Trademark Assistance Center Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/mail.jsp. MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Please address correspondence to be directed to a mail stop identified below to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows (unless otherwise instructed): Mail Stop _____ Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Mail Stop Designations Explanation Mail Stop 3 Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC. Mail Stop 6 Mail for the Office of Procurement. Mail Stop 8 All papers for the Office of the Solicitor except communications relating to pending litigation and disciplinary proceedings; papers relating to pending litigation in court cases shall be mailed only to Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 15667, Arlington, VA 22215 and papers related to pending disciplinary proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge or the Director shall be mailed only to the Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 16116, Arlington, VA 22215. Mail Stop 11 Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS). Mail Stop 13 Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division. Mail Stop 16 Mail related to refund requests, other than requests for refund of a patent application publication fee. Such requests should be directed to Mail Stop PGPub. Mail Stop 17 Invoices directed to the Office of Finance. Mail Stop 24 Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program, including complaints about Invention Promoters. Mail Stop 171 Vacancy Announcement Applications. Mail Stop Assignment All assignment documents, security interests, Recordation Services and other documents to be recorded in the Assignment records. Note that documents with cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov) are processed much more quickly than those submitted by mail. Mail Stop Document All requests for certified or uncertified Services copies of patent or trademark documents. Mail Stop EEO Mail for the Office of Civil Rights. Mail Stop External Mail for the Office of External Affairs. Affairs Mail Stop Interference Communications relating to interferences and applications and patents involved in interference. Mail Stop M Mail to designate or change a fee Correspondence address, or other correspondence related to maintenance fees, except payments of maintenance fees in patents. See below for the address for maintenance fee payments. Mail Stop OED Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. Maintenance Fee Payments Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov, payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the United States Postal Service to: United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 979070 St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn: Maintenance Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier may be made to: Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Attn: Maintenance Fee 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Deposit Account Replenishments To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments through the United States Postal Service to: United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 979065 St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) may be delivered to: Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Attn: Deposit Accounts 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Information abount deposit account replenishments may also be found on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cfo/finance/Deposit_Account_ Replenishments.jsp 
Top of Notices Top of Notices
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
 Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs), provide public access to patent and trademark information received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This information includes all issued patents, all registered trademarks, the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, search tools such as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental information in a variety of formats including online, optical disc, microfilm and paper. Each PTRC also offers access to USPTO resources on the Internet and to PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system used by patent examiners that is not available on the Internet. Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information. All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience. State Name of Library Telephone Contact Alabama Auburn University Libraries (334) 844-1737 Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3620 Alaska Fairbanks: Keith B. Mather Library, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks (907) 474-2636 Arizona Phoenix, Arizona State Library of Arizona Arizona State Library Archives and Public Records (602) 926-3870 Arkansas Little Rock: Arkansas State Library (501) 682-2053 California Los Angeles Public Library (213) 228-7220 Riverside: University of California, Riverside, Orbach Science Library (951) 827-3316 Sacramento: California State Library (916) 654-0261 San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5800 San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4400 Sunnyvale Public Library (408) 730-7300 Colorado Denver Public Library (720) 865-1711 Connecticut Fairfield: Ryan-Matura Library Sacred Heart University (203) 371-7726 Delaware Newark: University of Delaware Library (302) 831-2965 Dist. of Columbia Washington: Howard University Libraries (202) 806-7252 Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County Main Library (954) 357-7444 Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665 Orlando: University of Central Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562 Georgia Atlanta: Library and Information Center, Georgia Institute of Technology (404) 385-7185 Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Library (808) 586-3477 Illinois Chicago Public Library (312) 747-4450 Macomb: Western Illinois University Libraries (309) 298-2722 Indiana Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library (317) 269-1741 West Lafayette Siegesmund Engineering Library, Purdue University (765) 494-2872 Iowa Davenport: Davenport Public Library (563) 326-7832 Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita State University 1 (800) 572-8368 Kentucky Louisville Free Public Library (502) 574-1611 W. Frank Steely Library Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, Kentucky (859) 572-5457 Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875 Maine Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library, University of Maine (207) 581-1678 Maryland Baltimore: University of Baltimore Law Library (410) 837-4554 College Park: Engineering and Physical Sciences Library, University of Maryland (301) 405-9157 Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library, University of Massachusetts (413) 545-2765 Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400 Ext. 4256 Michigan Ann Arbor: Art, Architecture & Engineering Library, University of Michigan (734) 647-5735 Big Rapids: Ferris Library for Information, Technology & Education, Ferris State University (231) 592-3602 Detroit: Public Library (313) 481-1391 Michigan Technological University, Van Pelt and Opie Library, Houghton (906) 487-2500 Minnesota Hennepin County Library Minneapolis Central Library (612) 543-8000 Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library Commission (601) 961-4111 Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600 Ext. 724 St. Louis Public Library (314) 352-2900 Montana Butte: Montana Tech Library of the University of Montana (406) 496-4281 Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411 New Hampshire Concord: University of New Hampshire School of Law (603) 513-5130 Nevada Reno: University of Nevada, Reno, Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center (775) 784-6500 Ext. 257 New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779 Piscataway: Library of Science and Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895 New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 474-5355 Buffalo and Erie County Public Library (716) 858-7101 Rochester Public Library (716) 428-8110 New York: New York Public Library, Science Industry & Business Library (212) 592-7000 North Carolina J. Murrey Atkins Library, University of North Carolina at Charlotte (704) 687-0494 North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library, University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888 Ohio Akron - Summit County Public (330) 643-9075 Library Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Public Library of (513) 369-6932 Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870 Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar Library, Wright State University (937) 775-3521 Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5209 Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Edmon Low Library (405) 744-6546 Pennsylvania Philadelphia, The Free Library of (215) 686-5394 Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of (412) 622-3138 University Park: PAMS Library, Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617 Puerto Rico Bayamon: Learning Resources Center, University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000 Ext. 3222 Mayaquez General Library, University of Puerto Rico (787) 832-4040 Ext. 2023 Bayamon, Learning Resources Center, University of Puerto Rico (787) 786-5225 Rhode Island Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027 South Carolina Clemson University Libraries (864) 656-3024 South Dakota Rapid City: Devereaux Library, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (605) 394-1275 Tennessee Nashville: Stevenson Science and Engineering Library, Vanderbilt University (615) 322-2717 Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering Library, University of Texas at Austin (512) 495-4511 College Station: West Campus Library, Texas A & M University (979) 845-2111 Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468 Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice University (713) 348-5483 Lubbock: Texas Tech University (806) 742-2282 San Antonio Public Library (210) 207-2500 Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library, University of Utah (801) 581-8394 Vermont Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library, University of Vermont (802) 656-2542 Washington Seattle: Engineering Library, University of Washington (206) 543-0740 West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library, West Virginia University (304) 293-4695 Wisconsin Wendt Commons Library, University of Wisconsin-Madison (608) 262-0696 Milwaukee Public Library (414) 286-3051 Wyoming Cheyenne: Wyoming State Library (307) 777-7281 
Top of Notices Top of Notices
Patent Technology Centers
PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS1
Technology
Center		GAUAvg Filing Date
1600BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
 161012/26/2013
 162003/15/2014
 163009/28/2013
 164001/07/2014
 165011/10/2013
 166006/02/2013
 167001/13/2014
 TOTAL12/20/2013
   
1700CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS
 171005/08/2013
 172006/17/2013
 173007/14/2013
 174007/17/2013
 175005/05/2013
 176012/07/2013
 177006/23/2013
 178007/08/2013
 179008/20/2013
 TOTAL 07/20/2013
   
2100COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE
 211006/23/2013
 212002/15/2013
 213007/02/2013
 214002/12/2013
 215008/08/2013
 216007/17/2013
 217002/18/2013
 218009/25/2013
 219008/11/2013
 TOTAL 06/05/2013
   
2400NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY
 241007/14/2013
 242011/19/2013
 243010/26/2013
 244004/26/2013
 245004/02/2013
 246008/14/2013
 247008/02/2013
 248002/09/2013
 249011/01/2013
 TOTAL 07/08/2013
   
2600COMMUNICATIONS
 261004/14/2013
 262007/24/2013
 263002/21/2014
 264008/26/2013
 265006/29/2013
 266009/28/2013
 267003/03/2014
 268009/13/2013
 269007/17/2013
 TOTAL 09/10/2013
   
2800 SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING
 281003/06/2014
 282001/19/2014
 283006/26/2013
 284008/11/2013
 285009/13/2013
 286012/04/2012
 287008/17/2013
 288010/29/2013
 289003/03/2014
 TOTAL 09/25/2013
   
2900  
 291001/01/2014
 292010/23/2013
 TOTAL 12/26/2013
   
3600  TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
 361001/28/2014
 362006/05/2013
 363003/15/2014
 364008/05/2013
 365010/11/2013
 366012/07/2013
 367008/26/2013
 368006/29/2013
 369002/06/2014
 TOTAL 10/17/2013
   
3700 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS
 371010/01/2013
 372004/23/2013
 373007/11/2013
 374001/25/2013
 375005/30/2013
 376007/05/2013
 377005/24/2013
 378001/01/2014
 TOTAL 05/24/2013
   
 1 Report last updated on 02-28-2015.
Top of Notices Top of Notices