Tag Archives: Expedited Examination

The USPTO Glossary Pilot Program

In a Federal Register Notice published March 27, 2014, the USPTO announced a Glossary Pilot Program that will offer expedited examination to new patent applications in certain technology areas that include a glossary of terms that meets certain formal requirements. The program will commence on June 2, 2014, and run for six months or until … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Eases Requirements For Track I Prioritized Examination

In a Federal Register Notice issued March 5, 2014, the USPTO announced interim rules under the Track I prioritized examination program that ease the formal requirements for obtaining Track I prioritized examination of a new application. The eased requirements apply to all Track I requests filed since September 16, 2012 (even if previously rejected) as … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Launches Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program

The USPTO has announced that it is launching its pilot program “to incentivize the distribution of patented technologies to address humanitarian needs.” As explained in the  Federal Register Notice, “the pilot program will be run as an awards competition.” The program will be open to owners of granted patents and pending patent applications in four … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Opens Track I Expedited Examination To RCEs

In today’s Federal Register Notice, the USPTO announces the expansion of its Track I program for fee-based expedited examination to include Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). While this may be good news on a practical level, it exacts a high price to obtain prompt review of an application that already is midstream in the examination process. … Continue reading this entry

Tidbits From IPO PTO Day

I was co-chair of last week’s IPO PTO Day conference, and it was a great event. The program included several speakers from the USPTO, including Commissioner for Patents Bob Stoll, Deputy Commissioner for Patents Peggy Focarino, Chief Administrative Patent Judge James Smith, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge James Moore, and Administrative Patent Judge Michael Tierney. … Continue reading this entry